Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Small Firms Initiative

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's small firms initiative; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's small firms initiative; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The small firms initiative, which was launched by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in November 1986, has contributed to a 30 per cent. increase in the number of firms seeking registration on the defence contractors list, and a greater proportion of those applying are accepted for registration.

Mr. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was the Ministry of Defence which, in 1980, pioneered the arrangements under which small and medium-sized firms were invited by the Ministry of Defence to tender for services and that in the process it saved £14 million—40 per cent. of previous costs? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with 1,300 companies now applying to the Ministry of Defence through the initiative, we may look forward to further value for money and competitiveness and a higher standard of goods, as was intended in 1980?

Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad to say that nearly 2,000 small firms have approached the Ministry of Defence as a result of the initiative, and those firms make a valuable contribution to our procurement effort overall.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems facing small companies is the excessively long time that it takes them to get paid by the bigger companies involved in defence work? Will he consider using the considerable leverage that the Ministry of Defence has to insist that the smaller companies' terms of business are adhered to by the bigger companies, which, in turn, no doubt like their own terms of business to be honoured by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am very conscious of that point, and we have emphasised it in our defence contract guides. If

my right hon. Friend has any particular examples of slow payment to bring to my attention, I shall be happy to follow them up.

Mr. Wilson: As part of his general concern for small firms and their dealings with the Ministry of Defence, will the Minister give some consideration to small firms which undertake subcontracting work in good faith and find themselves with no protection from the Ministry of Defence, despite the fact that it is the end beneficiary of the enterprise? For example, he may be aware that several small firms in Scotland have experienced extreme financial difficulty as a result of not being paid for the work that they undertook on the Gairlochead bypass project.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that small firms have for a long time played a major part in the defence procurement effort as subcontractors of main contractors. In those circumstances, the contractural relationships are the responsibility, not of the Ministry of Defence, but of the main contractor and his subcontractors. As I said earlier, we emphasise to main contractors the importance that we attach to their passing on proper payments to their subcontractors. I repeat that I shall be happy to investigate specific examples which are brought to my attention.

Mr. Latham: Is the initiative, and the small firms involved in it, sufficiently robust to avoid the gross waste of up to £2 billion of public money on defence procurement every year, as revealed in the internal Ministry of Defence report "Learning from Experience"?

Mr. Sainsbury: I shall not be drawn by my hon. Friend on the specific figure that he mentions. However, I should like to emphasise again that we believe that if we have the widest possible number of contractors contributing to our competitive procurement methods that will help us to obtain value for money, and small firms have a valuable role to play in that process.

Nuclear Disarmament

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for nuclear disarmament he will take to the NATO nuclear planning group meeting at Kolding in April.

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend the nuclear planning group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): My right hon. Friend, who is on an official visit to the far east, has asked me to reply.
The next meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group will take place on 27–28 April at Kolding in Denmark. My right hon. Friend supports NATO's arms control priorities, which include 50 per cent. cuts in the strategic nuclear weapons of the United States and Soviet Union.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm what the Prime Minister told the House on 4 March, that the meeting at Kolding will have on its agenda proposals for new deployments to compensate for the withdrawals being made under the INF agreement? Did not the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag, and is not one of the aims to sabotage or undermine the great gains made by the INF treaty?

Mr. Stewart: It has long been recognised in NATO that force adjustments are needed from time to time in the light of changing circumstances, including, of course, questions such as the INF agreement, and that matter rests. There is no sign of remission by the Warsaw pact in the modernisation of its forces and it is entirely right that NATO should consider what it needs to do about updating its nuclear and conventional capabilities and making sure that its forces are deployed in the most effective way for the security of the West. Conservative Members believe that that is the top priority.

Mr. Duffy: How does the Minister suppose the Secretary of State will react when he is reminded by his German colleague that all parties in the Bundestag are agreed that the disarmament process should continue in respect of nuclear weapons with a range of less than 500 km? Moreover, how will he react when he is reminded by the rest of his European colleagues on the NPG that they are disinclined to link any approval of compliance with the INF with any correction of the conventional imbalance? Does the Minister see how far his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been isolated by the Prime Minister? Is he prepared to conjecture how far the Secretary of State will react?

Mr. Stewart: The impression that I gained when I visited NATO and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe, last week was that the other members of NATO were coming to accept the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's position. Indeed, the priorities established in NATO—arms control is indeed a question of priorities —are clear. We want a 50 per cent. agreement for the reduction of strategic weapons, we want a worldwide ban on chemical weapons, and we need to tackle conventional forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that in Germany there is some political anxiety about the process, but all Heads of State, including Chancellor Kohl of Germany, accepted the declaration at the end of the NATO summit meeting that short-range nuclear forces should be tackled only in conjunction with conventional forces and a chemical ban, not vice versa.

Mr. Mates: Is not the pernicious and false propaganda being peddled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and some of his hon. Friends precisely what we have to counteract with the truth? Is it not true that we have to modernise our weapons, and that if we had not modernised our intermediate nuclear forces we would not have the first agreement to reduce and eliminate one set of nuclear weapons? That is what our opponents understand. We must continue to modernise, and it must never be confused with substitution. There is no question that we are substituting any INF weapons that have been removed. There is every need for us to modernise and keep up to date with the rest so that we can negotiate more real reductions from strength.

Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The question of modernisation hardly seems to be a matter capable of dispute because, shortly after the INF agreement, the Soviet Defence Minister said that the Soviet Union would exert all efforts to make the Warsaw pact even more powerful. Non-modernisation by NATO in the face of the relentless build up by the Warsaw pact would be unilateral disarmament by another name. It

would be gradual unilateral disarmament I agree, but, none the less, that is what it would be. Perhaps that is why it appeals so much to Opposition Members.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that there is no case for trying to replace the INF systems that have been so painfully negotiated away, but that there is a powerful argument for sticking to the 1983 Montebello decision, which argued that NATO's nuclear stockpile should be smaller but effective, survivable and more sophisticated? Is it not a matter of prudent common sense in the current situation?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, that it is not only prudent but necessary to follow through the Montebello decisions in the way that he suggests. The reduction of nuclear weapons was an important part of the Montebello decision, and I welcome the fact that the INF agreement removes a whole class of nuclear weapons. It is our intention that it should lead to a reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the unilateralist policies advocated by the Opposition had been pursued, the INF agreement would probably not have come about? When he deals with the NATO nuclear planning group, will he be kind enough to put forward some of the points advanced by the French, who are still members of NATO, although, regrettably, not part of its integrated structure?

Mr. Stewart: Like my hon. and learned Friend, I regret that the French are not part of NATO's integrated military structure, but they are showing welcome signs of taking a closer interest in the general affairs of NATO, which is greatly to be welcomed.
As for the INF agreement, if the Opposition had had their way and there had been no deployment of cruise missiles, there could never have been an INF agreement, because there would have been nothing to have an agreement about.

Mr. O'Neill: When the nuclear planning group meets, will the remit of the Minister's right hon. Friend be secure compensation, his objective at Monterey, or modernisation, which was the Prime Minister's objective at Brussels? Or, in respect of short-range weapons, will it merely be the deferment of any decision until the 1990s, as suggested by Chancellor Kohl after the last summit?

Mr. Stewart: Many matters are under consideration by NATO. This is a continuous process. The modernisation of forces that we have been discussing is one of those matters, but, equally, adjustments and deployment of forces are always on the agenda—and so they should be. I cannot understand why some Opposition Members think that there is something wrong or immoral about ensuring that, as there are no limits on the deployment of forces by the other side, our forces should be deployed in the most effective way for the security of the West. That is what NATO will be considering.

Anti-submarine Capability

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Royal Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The Royal Navy maintains an active programme of training in all aspects of anti-submarine warfare in addition to carrying out its current tasks.

Mr. Patchett: Does the Minister agree that the Gulf operation has stretched the Royal Navy elsewhere? Would it not be better, perhaps, to order more ships for the genuine protection of our country's interests than to spend billions of pounds on Trident?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the activities in the Gulf entail a great deal of effort and involvement by ships of the Royal Navy, but we must always consider the balance of tasks and training, which varies over time.
In a fleet of about 150 ships we have about 50 destroyers and frigates. Today there are 49, but we expect by the end of the week to have 50, when HMS Sheffield is accepted into service in Portsmouth.

Mr. Flynn: The whole House will have been saddened by the unprecedented loss of life that has taken place in the Gulf in the last 24 hours. It is a reminder to us all of the courage of our seamen who are engaged there, but the fact remains that if our most capable ships are employed there, performing a role that is at best secondary for this country —defending the interests of foreign business men using our country as a flag of convenience—we are neglecting our primary role of patrolling the north Atlantic and carrying out an anti-submarine function there. Should we not seek an expansion of our fleet, because the abnormal military position is rapidly becoming the norm?

Mr. Stewart: I have explained to the House that we have a substantial destroyer and frigate fleet. Of course, in the Gulf it is necessary to concentrate more on air defence of ships as opposed to the anti-submarine capability. We must balance the need for training and exercises for a potential wartime role—which, I am sure, is not imminent—against immediate operational needs. The Navy, and, indeed, all the armed forces, must do that.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the courage of our service men in the Gulf. As I know from my visit there, it is a dangerous, difficult and uncomfortable place in which to work, and they deserve the support of the whole House.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend agree with the views expressed in Washington that, post-INF, the Soviets may redeploy their missile submarines to face European targets, or does he believe that the Soviets probably have more than enough submarines with a missile capability, including the giant Typhoon class, in these waters already?

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to speculate on the strength of the Soviet submarine fleet as currently deployed, but it is true that the Soviets have made substantial strides in updating their submarine capability by increasing the numbers, size and range of their submarines, so my hon. Friend's anxieties are not misplaced.

Mr. Sayeed: As the Soviet Union is launching a new submarine every 37 days, which reflects an increase in the

building of submarines, may I ask whether we are matching this with an increase in our frigates or antisubmarine forces?

Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend will recognise, one factor in the Government's policy for the frigates and destroyers in our fleet is to enhance their anti-submarine and anti-air missile capabilities. Although the number of ships in the fleet has remained at about 50 for some time, there has been a marked uprating in the capability of those ships with the latest type 22 and type 23 ships, which are much more capable than their predecessors.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister tell the House truthfully how many of those so-called 50 destroyers and frigates in the fleet are operational?

Mr. Stewart: Taking the figure of 49, which is today's number rather than Friday's, there are six currently in refit, and the remaining 43 are therefore available either immediately or within a short period.

Sir Ian Lloyd: As well over 100 Western seamen have now lost their lives in the Gulf and several million tonnes of Western shipping has been destroyed or damaged a t the cost of billions of dollars, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the cohesion and effectiveness of the total Western response in the Gulf? Is this not piracy in the 20th century, and is there not only one cure for piracy?

Mr. Stewart: To answer the essence of my hon. Friend's question, I am satisfied that the Western presence has been coherent. I am sure that the presence of navies from the European members of NATO alongside those from the United States has led, after an initial period of exceptional activity, to greater stability at sea in that area. At the moment the land war is raging furiously, but I have no doubt that the co-operation between Western navies and their very presence in the area has contributed to that stability. Not only the British Navy but the other navies have played an important role in an area which is vital for the economy and stability of the whole world.

Mine-laying Vessels

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mine-laying vessels are currently in service with the Royal Navy.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The Royal Navy has a large number of vessels which are currently capable of laying mines.

Mr. Graham: I understand that there is only one purpose-built mine layer in the British fleet. What is its age and when will it be replaced? It is incredible that we should enter into negotiations with our NATO partners on developing advanced mines when we do not even have any ships, except for that one, to lay them.

Mr. Stewart: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, advanced mines are a long-term project. On the immediate position, I believe that he must be referring to the minelayer HMS Abdiel, which is over 20 years old. We have not felt it necessary to have a specialist replacement ship for mine laying, because mines can be laid by a wide variety of vessels. They can be laid by submarines, offshore patrol vessels, Royal Maritime auxiliary vessels, Royal Fleet auxiliaries and aircraft. The task can be done by any suitably modified vessel at short notice. We do not regard it as cost-effective to have a specialist ship for that replacement.

Mr. Robert Banks: Can my hon. Friend say whether NATO has an agreed plan and strategy for the laying of mines and whether he has sufficient powers for the commandeering of merchant ships and other vessels and aircraft for that purpose, if the need were to arise?

Mr. Stewart: I can assure my hon. Friend that NATO has confidential plans for these matters and that arrangements for taking out ships from trade are also available. I hope that such contingency plans will never have to be put into practice.

Defence Contractors

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies are now on the register of defence contractors; and what steps he is taking to increase this number.

Mr. Sainsbury: In order to encourage the widest possible participation in Ministry of Defence work, we have introduced both the MOD contracts bulletin and the booklet "Selling to the MOD". Also, we attend "meet the buyer" exhibitions and we offer advice through the small firms division. Currently, there are about 9,000 companies on the defence contractors' list.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the increase in the number of companies on the register of defence contractors is assisting the Government in obtaining better value for money in fulfilling defence contracts?

Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It was gratifying that, in 1987, 3,780 applications for inclusion in the list were received, which represented an increase of 30 per cent. over the previous year. Over 45 per cent. more companies were accepted for inclusion in the list last year than in the previous year. This is making a major contribution to the Department's obtaining the best possible value for money in competitive procurement.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the case of Marconi, a company on that list, may I have an assurance that if, and when, fraud is found in respect of its contracts with the Ministry of Defence, no deal will be done behind closed doors between Ministry of Defence officials and the company? Will the Minister confirm that those people found to be responsible for fraud will be prosecuted in the British courts?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the House is by now well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. I hope that he is also now well aware that the investigation currently under way is under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, therefore, is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware of the trend in the United States for increasing numbers of contracts to be placed in the service sector, whether in information technology, computers or even procurement, on behalf of the defence authority? Does he believe that there is an opportunity in this country to move in the same way and to put out to contract much of the task that is frequently tackled in-house?

Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, contracts for services, like contracts for the supply of goods, can be subject to

competition, and, wherever possible, we subject them to competition. In addition, where services provided in defence establishments can be provided more satisfactorily and economically by the private sector, we are prepared to put them out to contract, and we have an ongoing and successful programme in that respect.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that, given the increasing numbers of contractors, there is an urgent need for the proper supervision of contracts? The Minister talked down my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), although he gave the House proof of the absolute scandal of defence contractors ripping off the British taxpayer. It is about time that the Minister got to grips with these defence contractors and stopped this fraud.

Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I take as serious a view of any potential fraud as does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We are anxious to ensure that no such fraud occurs. I hope he will agree that competitive contracting is one of the best ways of ensuring that the Ministry obtains value for money. As I have already pointed out, the matter to which the hon. Member for Workington referred is being investigated, and that investigation is now under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be up to him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to decide what prosecutions, if any, should result.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the contracts where problems have arisen have been cost-plus contracts, many of which were inherited from the previous Labour Government, and that the changes in policy that have been brought about by the movement away from cost-plus contracts to tenders have cut out a great deal of the potential for fraud and brought about much better value for money?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, we inherited from the previous Government a large proportion of contracts which had been placed on a cost-plus basis and they were an invitation for potential overcharging. Indeed, since many Ministry of Defence contracts are of long duration they unfortunately take some considerable time to work through the system. I am glad to say that we have reduced the proportion of cost-plus contracts to a much lower proportion of the total than in 1979, and we seek to bring it down even further. That, combined with applying the shortest possible contract conditions, is making it much less likely that there will be a repetition of some of the unfortunate cases of the past.

North-west England (Defence Resources)

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to relocate defence resources to the north-west of England.

Mr. Sainsbury: We are always prepared to consider relocating defence work to areas of high unemployment when it is justifiable on both operational and economic grounds. Indeed, I have recently approved a reorganisation of the Defence Industrial Pay Organisation, which will result in the transfer of about 60 jobs from Portsmouth to Cheadle Hulme.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that defence work should be relocated to the north-west, thus releasing high


value land in the south-east, which would give the Minister's coffers a considerable budget? Is there a relocation policy in the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the high land values in parts of London and the south-east. I hope he is well aware that many of the operational parts of the Ministry of Defence are located in the south-east because of long operational requirements. We are prepared to look at relocation to areas of high unemployment, but only where such relocation would be operationally effective and economically worth while.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best service that he could do for the north-west would be to encourage successful companies there, such as British Aerospace, Lucas Aerospace. Rolls-Royce and Royal Ordnance, to compete for available defence contracts?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. The Ministry of Defence creates employment, not only by direct employment in its own establishments, but through the contracts that it places with British industry. I am conscious of the considerable contribution made to the Ministry of Defence by substantial contractors, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend, who have long-established traditions of being major suppliers to the Ministry of Defence and employ a large number of people, including skilled people, in the north-west.

Hydrogen Bombs

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.

Mr. Ian Stewart: No decisions on a replacement for the United Kingdom's free-fall nuclear bombs have yet been taken.

Ms. Primarolo: Are air-launched cruise missiles being considered by the Government as an option to replace the hydrogen bomb carried by the Tornado aircraft in the Royal Air Force? Is it not true that that decision is a consequence of the Montebello agreement and the decisions on modernisation? Is it therefore true that the article in The Guardian on 29 February is correct in saying that a decision has been taken to develop a new cruise missile — a new nuclear weapon — without Parliament being told?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady is wrong. No decisions have been made, but there are many options. The requirements of the United Kingdom and of other countries need to be considered, and it will be some time before a decision is made.

Ms. Ruddock: Further to that answer, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no decision will be made to develop a nuclear warhead at AWE Aldermaston for an air-launched cruise missile without a debate in the House? Is it not true that such a weapon, if carried on a plane, would take it within the range of the very INF missiles that have just been negotiated away? As the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about INF, surely the better thing to do would be to negotiate a ban on all air-launched missiles, instead of unilateral escalation.

Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Lady shares my enthusiasm for the INF agreement, especially as she and her hon. Friends played such a part in trying to present its ever coming about.
As I have said, any decisions about replacement for the United Kingdom's nuclear bombs are some way off. I have no doubt that the House will be fully informed and will have many occasions on which to debate and consider the matter when the decision is made.

Mr. Cormack: If my hon. Friend and his colleagues want to update weapons without telling anyone, will they consult the Chevaline brigade?

Mr. Stewart: The example of which my hon. Friend has reminded the House is just another aspect of the way in which the Labour party, even when in power, is entirely dishonourable about these matters.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tornado aircraft is a very expensive and sophisticated platform for the carrying of weapons systems, and that the pilot is trained at great expense? Is it not therefore essential that both pilot and aircraft are given the equipment that will meet the challenges and demands of the sophisticated Soviet equipment that they will have to face, and that a stand-off capability will have to be produced in the very near future?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure my hon. Friend is right in saying that a stand-off capability of that kind is likely to be very important for the Royal Air Force and our allies for a number of years ahead. However, I join him in saying that the pilots of the Tornados are the most professional in the world. The RAF pilots of Tornados and other aircraft have no match, not only in NATO, but anywhere else. We rely on them for the strength and the degree of security that we possess, and we are grateful for that.

Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), repeatedly attacked any concept of the SLOvIs and air-launched cruise missiles, on the basis of the difficulty of verifying such weapons and the problems that would arise for the deal beyond the next deal? Is that still the Government's view, and are they still prepared to reject as an option any possibility of having air-launched cruise missiles as part of Britain's nuclear arsenal?

Mr. Stewart: We think that we will need what is technically known as a TASM—a tactical air-to-surface missile—as a replacement for the free-fall bomb. I have no recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) ever having spoken against that, because it has been the Government's policy for some considerable time to support that proposal, alongside our NATO colleagues.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I emphasise as strongly as I can to my hon. Friend the importance of giving the Royal Air Force a stand-off capability as early as possible? The air defences of the Warsaw pact are improving greatly, and without such a capability British air crews would be lost unnecessarily were deterrence to fail.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Developments of this kind must take account of the threat of the Warsaw pact capability. My hon. Friend is right to state that the uprating of the Warsaw pact air defence


capability means that we must bring our own forces up to date and not adopt the policy of non-modernisation, which appeals so much to the Labour party.

Multiple-launch Rocket System

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for the introduction into service of the multiple-launch rocket system.

Mr. Sainsbury: As my predecessor stated in answer to the hon. Gentleman on 5 June 1986, the contract for the European production of the multiple launch rocket system phase 1 was placed by Germany on behalf of the European partners in May 1986. The United Kingdom plans to introduce MLRS into service around the end of this decade.

Mr. Pike: Will MLRS be nuclear capable? Will the Minister assure the House today that neither nuclear nor chemical warheads will be fitted to MLRS? Does he accept that the system will cause verification problems in respect of both conventional and nuclear weapons, as it can use various warheads?

Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Warsaw pact has had similar systems that are chemically capable since the 1940s. The rockets planned for the MLRS are of several types of warhead. These include bomblets in phase 1, mines in phase 2, and guided sub-munitions for attack on armoured vehicles in phase 3.

Armed Forces (Recruits)

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits joined the armed forces in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; what was the number of recruits actually needed for this period; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): In the 12 months ended 31 January 1988 the United Kingdom regular forces recruited 33,805 men and women. In 1986–87 recruitment reached 99 per cent. of the targets for officers and other ranks.

Dr. Clark: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the sheer professionalism of our armed forces that makes the services so attractive to recruits? Does he agree that it is this, coupled with the good and realistic rates of pay since 1979, that has led to the satisfactory figures that he has been able to report this afternoon?

Mr. Freeman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's pay policy, which has involved pay comparability for the armed forces, has been successful in recruitment. The record is excellent and is in stark contrast to the policy pursued by the Labour party.

Mr. Sean Hughes: Should not the figure of 33,000 recruits be placed in the context of almost 37,000 who left the armed services over the same period?

Mr. Freeman: The reasons why officers and men leave the armed services vary greatly between those wishing to leave before the end of their term of engagement and those who reach the end of their engagement. Premature voluntary retirement rates — PVR rates — for all three services have been broadly stable for the last 18 months. They are still too high, but they are very much lower than the level reached under the previous Labour Government.

European Fighter Aircraft

Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is able to give a firm date when he expects production of the European fighter aircraft to commence in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sainsbury: Production of the European fighter aircraft is expected to commence in all four countries in the early 1990s, subject to international agreement to the launch of the intervening phases.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he assure the House that he is aware of the fact that an American team is in this country trying to sell Britain an updated version of one of its fighter aircraft? Can he assure the House that he recognises how important it is to British industry that the European fighter aircraft goes ahead?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the importance of the European fighter aircraft to British industry. It is only to be expected that in the runup to such a major procurement decision there will be intense lobbying from rival aerospace camps. I am confident that the case for the European fighter aircraft will prove sufficiently robust to withstand comparison with all the alternative options, including the updated F18.

Mr. Cryer: Should we not be concentrating resources on civilian aircraft production instead of embarking on another massive expenditure such as the Tornado, the biggest peacetime expenditure in the history of this country? Why do we need to spend all this money on these massively sophisticated aircraft, which seem to keep falling out of the sky, at enormous cost as well? Would it not be better to get a licence for single-seater Cessna production from the United States, as this seems to be the type of aircraft that can get to Red Square, if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, like most hon. Members, attach high importance to the protection of United Kingdom air space. I can assure him that the European fighter aircraft will be a very effective and substantial contribution to that protection.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I also attended the launch of the Tidy Britain Group's litter initiative. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Kuwait. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Flannery: Has the Prime Minister read the report in The Daily Telegraph today which states that St. Thomas hospital, just across the river, is to close another 200 beds, and that that is in addition to the 137 beds closed less than five months ago? How much longer is this appalling attack on the Health Service to go on? Will the Prime Minister give me a straight answer and not read out that long list of statistics.

The Prime Minister: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not want the long list of statistics which prove how very much more is being spent on the Health Service and how very many more nurses and doctors there are now. Like other hospitals, St. Thomas has to live within a budget. Many hospitals live within a budget, but some do not. We are entitled to ask why some do and others do not. With regard to provision in Greater London as a whole, in spite of the increased allocations of money to other regions in preference to London, London has received an increase in real terms.

Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy programme today to commend the immense efforts by the AEU—the Amalgamated Engineering Union—to try to gain agreement to attract Ford to Dundee? Does she agree that the vote taken earlier today in the STUC was, sadly, too little, too divided and too late? Will she make it absolutely clear that ordinary trade unionists in Scotland are appalled by what has happened, in marked contrast to the deathly silence and total inactivity by the best-known TGWU-sponsored Member of Parliament in the House?

The Prime Minister: I share the view of my hon. Friend and agree with what he said about the great efforts of the engineering union to come into the 20th century and to take the requisite action, which would have persuaded Ford to give these much-needed jobs to Dundee. I condemn, with my hon. Friend, the attitudes of other unions which are more interested in their own sectional interests and in demarcation than in winning the jobs for Dundee, and one condemns the attitude of the Labour party which, over five months, did little to bring the other unions into the 20th century.

Mr. McAllion: The Prime Minister knows that only yesterday an all-party delegation from Dundee successfully lobbied the TUC to support a deal which might yet bring Ford to Dundee. Dundee still has a fighting chance, particularly as Mr. John Emmert, the spokesman for Ford, has said that no decision has yet been taken on the location of the plant. In those circumstances, may I call upon the Prime Minister, and those on the Benches behind her, to stop trying to score petty party political points— [Interruption]—and to stop playing politics with Dundee's jobs?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the unions, which, after five months, have been unable to come to a reasonable agreement, and even now are split. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the words of Gavin Laird, set out in The Sunday Times:
After five months
the patience of Ford
has run out. Dundee has lost 1,000 jobs but the trade union movement has lost much, much more. Once again, we
—the trade unions—
appear to be a destructive force in British society, ignorant, disunited and living in the past.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend, or her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, draw the attention of the broadcasting authorities to

section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, under which it is an offence to withhold information of material assistance in bringing terrorists to justice—or are they above the law?

The Prime Minister: I believe that everyone, the media included, has a bounden duty to do everything that he can to see that those who perpetrated the terrible crimes that we saw on television and that disgusted the whole world are brought to justice. Either one is on the side of justice in these matters, or one is on the side of terrorism.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Barnes: Does the Prime Minister agree that the most crucial change that is needed in the National Health Service is to acknowledge patients' rights to treatment within a given period of time? If that means that they may have to go to an alternative health authority, they should be entitled to do so and their own health authority should have to pay for the necessary treatment.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the kind of formula that the hon. Lady enunciated in her question. We must make it easier for patients to go from one health authority to another. At the moment the requisite money is a long time in coming and the amount that has to be calculated is not altogether clear. We are trying to move in the direction where the money moves with the patient to the hospital that carries out the operation. The hon. Lady will know that we have just allocated an extra £30 million, which it is hoped will enable about 100,000 additional operations to be carried out, thereby reducing the waiting lists.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the weekend a crime took place that was almost unique in its evil and wickedness? Is it not a fact that we have the right to control the number of demonstrators who go to funerals? These funerals have become, not a day of mourning, but a day of death. Is it not right that we should limit the number of people who go to a funeral to 50 without the Secretary of Stare's specific permission? The killing of people is no part of mourning or of death.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, together with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will consider these matters, but there is another factor. There was a terrible crime, there were many, many witnesses, and expressions of revulsion and condemnation are not enough. The acid test is whether all those who expressed them—all constitutional parties and those members of the Church who have expressed revulsion — will go to the Republican areas in Northern Ireland and urge those who know who perpetrated these crimes, or who know where to find them, to co-operate with the police in every single matter. Mere expressions of sympathy and condemnation are not enough. It is what people do which tells us whether they are really determined to root out terrorism.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: May I first welcome the approach that the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable are taking, and the reappraisal which the Government are prepared to make of the approach that they are taking in Northern Ireland? I am sure that the right hon. Lady will carry full support for that aspect of her policy.
In the public debate taking place in the Government, does the Prime Minister take Lord Young's view that we long ago found that the pound seems to rise and fall to its own level, or does she agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that greater exchange rate stability has an explicit role?

The Prime Minister: I take the view that the economy is being superlatively handled by the entire Government, that it has led to growth far greater than that in any other European country without the emergence of inflation, and I am not prepared to take lectures from anyone who was in a Government who saw devaluation, inflation and economic decline.

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not the case that while under this Government we have lost 20 per cent. of our world trade share, under the last Labour Government we gained 13 per cent. in world trade share? On the subject of inflation and the Prime Minister's refusal to answer the previous question, may I ask whether she is saying that the pound should be allowed to go higher, in the hope that it will bring inflation lower?

The Prime Minister: I am suggesting that the economy be continued under the excellent management of the Government, which has had such marvellous results and which, if the trade unions would come into the 20th century, would have even better results.

Mr. Kinnock: That is still no reply to the question about the Chancellor and Lord Y oung—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: We still have not had a reply to the question about the difference between the Chancellor and Lord Young, which is rather fundamental. If the Prime Minister agrees with Lord Young and is now against intervention, why did the Government allow $21 billion to be spent in the period before 4 March to try to stabilise the pound?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman goes on and on because he has not got a single thing to say: no criticism of the economy, and he votes to increase taxation, knowing full well that it is the reduction in taxation that has led to the growth that has led to the higher standard of living and the higher standard of social services. He is against the whole lot.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while terrorists abuse the law, they always expect the full protection of that law? Will she at least consider amending

the law to resuscitate the status of outlaw and therefore remove the full protection of the law from certain specific terrorist organisations and their members?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a Prevention of Terrorism Act, which we on the Government side vote for and support. It gives the police certain powers against terrorism, which has helped them very much in apprehending terrorists, sometimes before they have committed a crime, and sometimes in enabling others to be excluded. My right hon. Friend will be considering whether anything further needs to be done.

Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carlile: Does the right hon. Lady accept the words of her noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, that in recent European power station negotiations nothing was further from his mind than privatisation? Or is it not rather the case that the Dutch Minister, Mr. Nijpels, was right when he accused the British of diktat and of obstructing the cleaning up of the air over Europe?

The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We have a large programme for the large power stations, where most coal is burnt, and we were protesting against having to spend a great deal of money on smaller power stations, which are responsible for only 2 per cent. of the sulphur emissions, which would have been very expensive. I advise those who criticised us to realise that we have the second biggest programme in the whole of Europe for reducing sulphur emissions from power stations.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the so-called Moonie case, there is widespread concern over the definition of what may or may not be a bona fide charity? In view of the major contribution of charities to the benefit of others, is it not time to consider a statutory definition of charities?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a review of charities and of the definition. As he is also aware, it is easier to analyse the problem than it is to find a satisfactory redefinition of charities, but we shall nevertheless try to do that.

Murders (Northern Ireland)

Mr. William Ross: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary its film of the assault and murder of two members of Her Majesty's forces in Belfast on Saturday 19 March".
The horrific events in Belfast last Saturday were, in some measure, transmitted by major television networks and came into the living rooms of many millions of people, so that many millions of people saw for the first time the ugly reality of IRA murder.
We who live closer to those events in Northern Ireland know that for nearly 20 years that terrorist organisation has imposed its rule by kidnap, murder, torture and kangaroo courts. We believe that what people saw happening on Saturday simply happened in broad daylight, when it normally takes place in darkened alleys and on country roads. Those many people whose fate preceded that of the two unfortunate soldiers at the hands of the IRA have normally had a much longer drawn-out period of terror and agony before a bullet through the skull brought them merciful release.
Common decency, and, I believe, Members of this House, demand that citizens help the police to stop such crimes and to identify the murderers. The BBC transmits the "Crimewatch" programme and shows reconstruction of many crimes. No reconstruction is necessary for these events. All that we want, and all that the country wants, is the record of the vile and ugly murders that we saw in full on television.
The matter is urgent and specific, because I believe that many of those people who know that they are on the film will flee jurisdiction, and flee it soon. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for a debate, but the matter has moved on from then. It has now become specific and is, if possible, even more urgent. I do not believe that we in this House can be fobbed off with a few minutes' discussion during the Easter Adjournment debate on Friday. We must have a full debate, and we want it soon.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you for justice for those who died, and for the feelings of the people in this House and across the whole nation, and to rule that this debate should be granted soon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary its film of the assault and murder of two members of Her Majesty's Forces in Belfast on Saturday 19 March.

I have listened with great concern to what the hon. Member has said, as indeed I listened with distress to what was said in the House yesterday. As the hon. Member well knows, the granting of a debate under Standing Order No. 20 and whether it should take precedence over the Orders of the Day set down for today or tomorrow has to meet the criteria. I have to rule that is not so in this case, and I regret that I therefore cannot submit the hon. Member's application to the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? As you will know, Select Committees of the House have the power to send for persona and papers. Some years ago, there was a celebrated incident when the British Steel Corporation was obliged to divulge certain information. If the appropriate Select Committee of the House sent for these films, would that be a legitimate request?

Mr. Speaker: It would be up to the Select Committee concerned to decide who it wished to send for.
Later—

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little concerned. I seek your guidance about what makes a matter specific and important under Standing Order No. 20. Whatever view one takes of it, citizens of the United Kingdom have been foully murdered in a part of the United Kingdom, yet apparently their deaths are not regarded as specific or important enough to take precedence over legislation which the House is about to consider. I do not understand. Perhaps it would be helpful to hon. Members if we knew what was specific and important. If that matter is not specific and important, I do not know what is.

Mr. Speaker: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in the generality of what he has said. If he would like to come to see me privately, I will gladly explain to him the criteria as to what is urgent, what is specific and what is important in the context of Standing Order No. 20 applications.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Companies (Audit Committees)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to public companies and the contents of the directors' reports; to make provision concerning the appointment of audit committees of the directors of certain public companies; and for connected purposes.
In every Session of Parliament since 1969, I have introduced a Bill or a measure of reform of company law with a view to giving somewhat greater powers to the shareholders in public companies.
The privilege of limited liability was a very important concession. Shareholders have a clear responsibility to ensure that their undertakings are efficiently and properly managed. Unfortunately, it can sometimes happen that the supervisory elements within the company, in particular the non-executive directors and the auditors, are not able to be as effective as they would like to be—or as they ought to be — for the good of the business. It is not always easy for the shareholders, when they suspect that something may not be quite right, to ensure that suitable changes are made.
Since 1970, in my series of proposals for reform of company law, I have sought ways to make it easier for shareholders, particularly the institutional investors, to overcome this problem without causing a major upheaval which might damage the business. In general I have sought to recommend a number of minor changes in the statutory procedures of public companies which would tend to give the non-executive directors more authority and which would give somewhat greater influence over management to the outside auditors.
My Bills have enjoyed all-party support from the beginning, and on three occasions, including last year, I have completed the Committee stage. I was encouraged by the amount of support that my Bill received last year. I think that the number of notorious cases of managerial failures and dubious practices that have lately been coming to light has convinced very many people that some changes in the law would be opportune.
In drafting my proposals for the present Session, I have consulted a number of eminent people in the profession of accountancy, and I have also received very helpful advice from a number of important institutions which are concerned with the efficiency and the rectitude of British management.
I should like to mention in particular the Bank of England, the stock exchange and the takeover panel; the CBI, the Institute of Directors and PRONED; the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. I have also been assisted and encouraged by colleagues on both sides of the House and I have been helped by a number of useful hints

from the Department of Trade and Industry. In so far as I could, I have taken up all the suggestions that have been made. I have also had the invaluable help of a company law specialist who is a partner in one of the most prominent firms of solicitors in the City.
My Bill this year will make two particular proposals — firstly, that the directors' reports of all pubic companies should indicate which of the directors are independent directors; and, if fewer than three such appointments have been made, what is the policy of the board in respect of such appointments.
Secondly, for major public companies, for which I include a definition which would cover some 250 or 350 of our largest public companies, it should be a regular item of business to be considered at the annual general meeting whether to require the board to appoint an audit committee of the directors. The practice of appointing an audit committee is now well established in north America and it is, in fact, part of the listing requirements of the New York stock exchange; but the practice has not yet made much progress among British companies.
It should be noted that my Bill would not require any company to set up an audit committee, but it would make it a relatively simple matter for the shareholders in very big companies to get it done if they thought it desirable.
For the convenience of companies which have decided to have such a committee, I include in my Bill a schedule of model rules for the conduct of an audit committee. In this I have sought to define procedures which will give a degree of influence to the members of the board who are nominated to serve on the committee, without weakening the collective responsibility of the directors as a whole. My schedule is something like an extension of "Table A." If a company preferred to register its own rules for the conduct of its audit committee, I have provided that it could do so by ordinary resolution.
I hope that the House will see the merit of these modest proposals and will once again give me leave to introduce my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Mark Wolfson.

COMPANIES (AUDIT COMMITTEES)

Sir Brandon Rhy Williams accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to public companies and the contents of the directors' reports; to make provision concerning the appointment of audit committees of the directors of certain public companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Civil Servants (Assistance to Ministers)

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising not from today's business but from observations of what has been happening over the past few weeks, and more particularly during the Budget debate.
By custom and practice, civil servants are allowed to sit in a Box on the same level as hon. Members so that they can help members of Her Majesty's Government by providing information which enables Ministers to answer questions and points which have been raised in debate. Observations over the past few weeks, and more particularly last night during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), showed that information supplied by civil servants in the Box was being handed to Government Back Benchers, who were then using it to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend.
This is not the first time that this has happened and it would seem that the privilege rightly extended to civil servants who need to be here to advise Ministers is now being abused. I hope that you, Sir, will take steps to restrain the practice.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. Civil servants are admitted to the Box to be at the disposal of Ministers. They should not distribute papers direct to other hon. Members. That should be done either through the Vote Office or on the letter board, in the normal way.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you tell the House precisely what civil servants are allowed to pass from the Box into the hands of Ministers, or, as usually happens, into the hands of the PPS, sent to the Box to receive information? There has been reason to complain in the past—for example, in Standing Committee, where there has been a much freer flow of information from civil servants to Ministers and then to Back Benchers. Of course we want to ensure that we all argue from the point of view of perfect information and knowledge, but if we are to have civil servants who are supposed to be impartial, they should not willingly involve themselves—it appears to be willingly in many cases—in party political conflict.

Mr. Speaker: I find it difficult to answer that question, because I have never been in that position, although I have occasionally heard Ministers state, having received a message, that a blinding light has struck them and that they can answer a question that has been asked of them.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I was one of the hon. Members who intervened last night in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I did so because, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. Gentleman referred to Hansard of 24 January. I went out into the Lobby and discovered that 24 January was a Sunday, so the reference could not be correct. I have since discovered that the reference related to 18 February. However, far from relating to an authoritative statement of what the adjudication officer may or may not have said, it related to the remarks of another Opposition Member. Could we find out from the hon. Gentleman the source of his original quotation?

Mr. Speaker: That happened last night and is certainly not relevant to a debate on the Education Reform Bill today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is significant that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has not denied the charge that has been made—namely that— [HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] It was sleight of hand; that is all. Like other civil servants, the civil servants in the Box are supposed to be impartial. It is not their job to supply briefs to Tory Back Benchers. They are supposed at all times to act for the Executive and the Executive alone. The Prime Minister seems to think it right and proper to go up in the air when civil servants are alleged to have leaked information, and on one occasion—perhaps two—serious action has been taken against them. But it looks as though the Prime Minister and Ministers do not care tuppence when the same civil servants leak information in a different fashion to the Government's supporters. Surely, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that it helps much, but I shall take it.

Mr. Pawsey: It seems from what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, (Mr. Bennett) said that he went outside to obtain the information, so all these points of order are based on a misconception. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the question arose from an inaccurate quotation by an Opposition Member.

Mr. Speaker: I accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that he went outside to get the information, and I have already stated the rule about civil servants.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Pembroke, (Mr. Bennett) honoured the conventions of the House by notifying my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in writing that he intended to raise a point of order relating to him.

Mr. Speaker: We should always keep to the conventions of the House. We must move on, as today's debate is subject to a guillotine motion.

EDUCATION REFORM BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Resolved,
That the Report [14th March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) — [Mr. Wakeham.]—and agreed to.

Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
Education Reform Bill (Business Committee). — The Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had come to a Resolution in respect of the Education Reform Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House:
That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be Government new Clauses; remaining new Clauses; Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 to 7, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 8 to 33, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 34 to


57, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 58 to 99, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 100 to 102, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 103 to 112, Schedule No. 6, Clauses 113 to 134, Schedule No. 7, Clause No. 167, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 168 to 173 and 135 to 164, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 165, 166 and 174 to 186 and Schedules Nos. 10 and 11; and new Schedules;
(2) the allotted days which, under the Order of 1st February, as varied by the Order of 17th February, are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order as so varied, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

Table


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Government new Clauses
6 p.m.



New Clauses Nos. 1 to 9
8.45 p.m.



Remaining new Clauses
10 p.m.


Second day
Amendments up to the end of Clause No.37
7.30 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 98
10 p.m.


Third day
Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 109
6 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 7
8 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 173
10 p.m.


Fourth day
Remaining proceedings on consideration
7.30 p.m.



Third Reading
10 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Education Reform Bill

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are facing this evening's debate and discussion on a large number of new clauses and amendments before the House in a limited time. May I have your procedural guidance as to how the discussion will proceed? Will it be that we shall follow each line of new clauses or amendments as on the Order Paper and does that not mean, therefore, that a great many new clauses and amendments will not be reached? My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and I have tabled new clauses on the important question of discipline in schools, including consideration of the restoration of corporal punishment at a period of extreme indiscipline in some schools. Will we have to decide whether to seek to move those new clauses without any discussion, or will we be able to contribute to the debate on the cluster of new clauses with which our new clauses are grouped?

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps when you come to reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) you might wish to invite him to say whether he voted for the guillotine motion on 1 February and, if he did, to suggest that he has been hoist on his own petard, because all the consequences to which he has referred flow directly from the guillotine motion which I think he voted for and which Opposition Members voted against, precisely because we thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to have an opportunity to discuss the Bill fully.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on this. I can answer the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). We shall proceed in the order of the selection on the Order Paper. The guillotine falls at 6 o'clock, 8.45 pm and again at 10 o'clock. If we get on, it is possible that the new clause of the hon. Member for Ealing, North will be reached. However, that will not happen if we have lots of points of order.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are considering this evening not only a long Bill — it must be one of the longest we have ever considered — but a complex one. It is one of the most botched-up hastily assembled Bills that I suspect has ever been on the Floor of the House. Time and again when we were considering the Bill in Committee, the Government presented us at the last minute with a series of amendments and ill-prepared texts. On Friday, not only were we asked to consider amendments tabled after the time in which Government new clauses could be amended but some of the amendments, masquerading as Government amendments, were in the name of Mr. Stanley Baker and there is no Member of that name in the House.
Today, hon. Members might like to note that we are being asked to consider a series of amendments, the first


of which is in the first group we are asked to consider, together with Government new clause 41, which make no sense. Government amendments Nos. 107 and 108 do not refer to the clause listed. Government amendment No. 107 refers to
Page 7, line 35 [Clause 7]
There is no clause 7 on page 7 of the Bill. The same applies to Government amendment No. 108.
How can we adequately debate these matters when we do not even know the clauses to which the printed amendments refer? It is only too typical of the chaotic and botched-up way in which the Bill has been brought before the House. We really must know what issues we are debating.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and say something about it when I have done so.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clause 62, standing in my name, and the new clauses standing in the names of Welsh nationalist Members and other Opposition Members, have not been selected. Will it be possible to debate the new clauses that have not been selected in the final group of new clauses?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot alter my selection. We are under a guillotine motion and we must get on. We stand no chance of getting to the new clauses tabled by Back Benchers if points of order continue. In order to get to those new clauses, we should now get on with the Government new clauses, which come first.

Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to your advice, and to what the Opposition have said, and I voted for the guillotine, but the way in which the timetable has been operated means that only an hour and a quarter has been given to a substantial series of new clauses. Great interest has been exhibited in new clauses 30 and 31 which, as you properly remind me, Sir, are Back Benchers' clauses. Recalling that when you were elected to your august office you declared your intention of safeguarding the interests of Back Benchers, it seems unfortunate that we may not reach new clauses 30 and 31, which deal with an important matter—corporal punishment in schools.

Mr. Speaker: The Business Committee has considered this matter and a few moments ago the House passed the resolution of the Business Committee. I am bound by that order of the House.

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain to the hon.' Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that his failure to have new clauses 30 and 31 on the flogging and beating of children discussed arises from two consequences of his actions? One was to vote for the guillotine motion that has curtailed the debate; and the second was his failure to get in the two new clauses before the Opposition.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that many Conservative Members have not the faintest idea what the guillotine is. They are now trying to go back on it and have new matters included. They are so ignorant about it that they thought they had set up a guillotine in New Palace Yard and put the Opposition on it. They do not know what they are doing.

New Clause 41

EXCEPTIONS FOR CATEGORIES OF PUPILS

'The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the provisions of the National Curriculum, or such of those provisions as may be specified in the regulations, shall not apply in relation to such categories of pupils as may be so specified.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 42 —

Temporary exceptions for individual pupils.

Government amendments Nos. 107 to 113 and No. 117.

Mr. Baker: I welcome this opportunity for a debate about the effect of the Bill on pupils with special educational needs. A great deal of concern has been expressed about such pupils in Standing Committee, in the country at large and, not least, in the representations made to my Department. I want to take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government are deeply concerned about this group of children, although that may not be the impression given by some of the public debate. I want the reforms that we are introducing to bring benefits to children with special needs—those who are handicapped in one way or another, physically or mentally —just as to other children.
The Education Act 1981, which followed the Warnock report, marked a major change in attitudes to the education of children with special needs. It produced a legislative framework that took account of progressive changes in attitude and methods of provision and set the scene for further development along the lines of the report. One of the themes of that report was that the need for special provision does not apply only to a small minority —the 2 per cent. or so of pupils in special schools—but, in various degrees, to perhaps as many as one sixth or one fifth of the school population.
The other principle was that children with special needs should, wherever possible and appropriate, be educated alongside children without such needs—that is to say, the principle of integration. That does not mean integration regardless of the circumstances of the individual child. Some children will continue to need provision that is so specialised that it cannot be provided in an ordinary school, and account must be taken of the wishes of parents about the way in which their children are educated.
The 1981 Act has brought about changes. Some changes can be observed and quantified. Others, which can be more important in the long term, are changes in attitude —the attitude of other children and the attitude of our society to children who are less gifted, less able or more handicapped than other children.
4 pm
There is a growing tendency to educate children with statements of special needs — those who previously would have been in special schools — in ordinary schools. In January 1987 the latest date for which we have figures—there were 29,000 children with statements attending ordinary schools, compared with just under 100,000 in special schools. Since 1982, my predecessor and


I have approved the closure of over 150 special schools maintained by local education authorities. In many cases, those closures were part of a reorganisation plan to make better provision for children with special needs.
I do not think that I need tell the House that those closures were not an exercise in saving money. If integration is carried out properly, the cost for the individual child in a special school may be very much the same as the cost for a child who is educated in an ordinary school. The benefit lies in the fact that the child in a junior school of 400 pupils has access to a wider range of curricular opportunities than he or she might get in a special school of 150 or fewer pupils. Some special schools are very small. To gain the full benefit, however, that child needs to be supported by specialist services and, most important, by the school, teachers and other children.
It is gratifying to see how the attitudes of the ordinary schools have changed and are changing. As I visit local authorities, I see examples of children who, 10 years ago, might have been in special schools being integrated into the ordinary schools. I particularly recall one visit which I made a couple of months ago to a school in Northumberland. I was impressed to see the way in which that primary school, the teachers and the young children had adopted handicapped children, from a neighbouring school. Some of those children were severely handicapped and could not fend for themselves.
That was a splendid and wonderful example of ordinary children, blessed with the full faculties that God has given them, looking after children who would never be able to cope alone in the world. It was a good example of caring and sharing. The commitment of the ordinary pupils was impressive. They felt an obligation. I know that many hon. Members have seen this in their constituencies: not only the children with special needs benefit. The ordinary children benefit by being in close relationship with children with these difficulties.
I pay tribute to the teachers in our special schools and the teachers who deal with children with special educational needs. They have a demanding task which requires enormous patience, devotion well above the normal course of duty and love, which is generously and willingly given every day by thousands of teachers in our schools.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When I was a teacher, I agreed strongly about the protective nature of other children towards handicapped children in the same school. What policy conclusion does the right hon. Gentleman draw in relation to creating the provision to encourage the basic physical conditions which allow often very handicapped pupils to remain in the school? There is a problem.

Mr. Baker: This is very much a matter for local education authorities. As I go round, I see more and more education authorities willing to absorb children with special educational needs into their classes. Sometimes that means that there must be adaptation of the means of access—for example, ramps or special handrails. Some schools may not need that provision. I have seen some schools in which a new lift has had to be installed to take children who are in wheelchairs up to classrooms. Since

1981, nearly 30,000 children who would otherwise have been in special schools have been absorbed into normal schools.
There are those who say that the Bill's provisions will slow down this progress and will undo some of the good work that has been done. I can see that that is a danger, if the provisions of the Bill are wrongly implemented. We have built in provisions to try to prevent that, and we are proposing further amendments to strengthen the safeguards. Clause 10 deals with children with statements and says that the provisions of the national curriculum can be modified or lifted in the case of individual children, if the statement says so. These are children who can be specifically identified. In the statement, it is possible to say that the child who may have locomotion difficulties or physical difficulties of co-ordination can be exempted from specific parts of the national curriculum.
Clause 4(3) aims at children with special needs who do not have statements and provides that, in making an order about a subject under the national curriculum, I, or the holder of my office, can make modifications in respect of a group of pupils. For instance, if the technology curriculum contained certain practical requirements which would be difficult for children with poor sight or imperfect control of their hands, I could provide for alternative ways of demonstrating the pupils' grasp of the principles that lay behind the practical experiment which the other children were taking.
New Clause 41 would extend this principle so that a designated category of pupils could be exempted from that part of the national curriculum.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Opposition welcome almost everything that the Secretary of State has said so far, but he uses the term "category" in new clause 41.
I should have thought that that negates almost all the idea of the caring concern which is shown by almost everyone involved in special education and in mainstream schools, in that they want to treat the child as an individual with a particulary possible learning difficulty, as opposed to a "category" of children. To treat children as a category tends to stigmatise and be the wrong approach to handicap. Could not the right hon. Gentleman have found some better wording than "category" of children?

Mr. Baker: I shall come to that point. I should like to explain why we think this wording is necessary. As I have said, clause 10 deals with children who have statements. In Committee we amended clause 10 because, as originally drafted, it allowed the statement to modify the national requirements but not to lift entire elements — our lawyers advise us that there is a difference between modification and lifting entire elements—from applying in any way to the child.
Entire elements would mean, perhaps, the whole part of a programme of study. Modification of a programme of study would mean that the programme was still recognisably the same after the changes had been made. Clearly, there may be circumstances in which modification of the national curriculum requirements would not be enough for a child with a particular learning difficulty or other handicap.
We have encountered exactly the same problem with the provision to make exceptions to the statutory requirements for identified categories of pupils. An


example we have previously given of such a case was that pupils with severe difficulties in English might be introduced later, or in a different way, to a foreign language. It might be possible to identify a category of a certain level of attainment. We would not want to ask a child or a group of children with severe trouble in coping with the English language to struggle when they get to year 11 or 12 to cope with French, German, Italian, Spanish or some other foreign language.
Another example might be a pupil or a group of pupils who made such rapid progress as to reach the highest levels in some foundation subjects before the age of 16. These are the very gifted children. They do not have special needs; they have special skills of one sort or another. We would not want the Bill to prevent such pupils from proceeding at an appropriate pace into sixth form studies or from seeking to study different subjects to complement those in which they have already demonstrated high achievement. Equally, we do not want to lay down rules of how this provision will apply to those children or others. We: believe that we should consult, and that would be a valuable process. This is a classic case for consultation and regulations.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to amendment No. 107. I cannot be responsible for printing errors. Amendment No. 107 should apply to clause I and not to clause 7, and I am not Mr. Stanley Baker.

Mr. Pawsey: He is dead.

Mr. Baker: As my hon. Friend says, he is dead. That has not yet occurred to me.

Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State tempts me with his last statement. Although he is not responsible for printing errors, amendment No. 107 still does not make sense because it refers to paragraph (b) and there is no consequential amendment for paragraph (a). That is indicative of the pace at which the right hon. Gentleman and his team have been pushing their officials, who could do their jobs far better at a more reasonable pace.
The Secretary of State said that the provisions in new clause 42 would come into effect, after consultation. However, the new clause says that he should consult the "appropriate bodies", whereas clause 4 requires consultation specifically with the National Curriculum Council. On that important point, why has the Secretary of State decided to limit the level and scope of consultation, instead of retaining the proposal contained in clause 4, which brings the National Curriculum Council into the matter? Does he want to have more power at his elbow rather than allowing others to have it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am responsible for printing errors. It is clause 11, but it is a rubric and it does not alter the sense of the amendment.

Mr. Baker: Thank you for assuming that responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It makes nonsense of the point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), which he raised on several occasions in Committee. He has tried to use pettifogging arguments which totally cloud the matter.

Mr. Ashdown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will now be offended and hurt. We do not want to hurt him, at least not

mortally. Just as Stanley Baker disappeared from the Order Paper, so the amendments will be corrected tomorrow when they come up for approval by the House.
It is important that we should consult on these matters, and we intend to do so. It was intended that there should be the necessary flexibility, but we have now been advised that clause 4(3) allows only modifications of the requirements, so we have amended that as well.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
For this reason, we have brought forward new clause 41. It provides us with the necessary flexibility and, together with clause 10 as amended and Government new clause 42, forms a complete package to accommodate children with particular needs within the national curriculum framework. I commend new clause 41 to the House.

Dr. Thomas: It will not have escaped the Secretary of State's notice that there is a suggestion on the Amendment Paper—it will not come up for debate because it has not been selected, so I shall not refer to it in detail—that consultation should be by means of an advisory committee. Has the Secretary of State considered this, and does he believe that an advisory committee should represent interest groups involved with special educational needs? Such a committee might be able to advise him just as effectively as the National Curriculum Council.

Mr. Baker: I hope to appoint the National Curriculum Council in shadow after Easter. It is important that it should be appointed in shadow as soon as possible, because it must proceed with the preliminary planning of the national curriculum, which we want to implement as soon as possible. I do not wish to be too prescriptive about how it should operate. It may want to set up its own subcommittee to deal with special educational needs. I leave that to the council. It will be a body of highly responsible people who will have a great responsibility in fashioning the national curriculum.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The National Association of Head Teachers is concerned that the Bill should make it clear that head teachers will have a role to play in this and that they will be able to determine the most appropriate curriculum for children with special educational needs. That could be done by, for example, putting the words "subject to the approval of the head teacher" into clause 10. Will the Secretary of State make clear the role of head teachers in this matter?

Mr. Baker: In the various groups that I have set up already, I have tried to involve teachers and head teachers. I envisage the some members of the National Curriculum Council will be teachers or head teachers, but I cannot yet say whether they will have experience of special educational needs. If they did not have that expertise, the council would be able to set up groups to take that into account.
Head teachers are a critical element in the formation of a national curriculum and, indeed, in the whole range of our educational reforms. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) will know, as he was in Committee, that the Bill gives head teachers a huge new


raft of responsibilities. The financial delegation clauses give head teachers a huge responsibility. Within three or four years, head teachers of all secondary schools and larger primary schools will control the budgets of their schools. I assure my hon. Friend, and the National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association, that we highly value the role of head teachers.
My hon. Friend will also know that I am bringing forward proposals to improve the training of head teachers. That is important, because they will be taking on managerial roles as a result of the education reforms. The present training does not include a great emphasis on managerial roles. Some courses have it, but others do not.
Head teachers will be responsible for budgets of up to £1 million. They will also be responsible for the day-to-day management of staff in their schools. They will have the right to hire and fire, in conjunction with their governing bodies. I assure my hon. Friend that we consider the role of head teachers to be most important.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association will be delighted to read my right hon. Friend's comments, that head teachers and assistant head teachers will be on the National Curriculum Council. Does he agree that it is important for that body to remain dynamic, for people to be on that body for a limited period and constantly to bring new people on to it, particularly those from the profession who are active at head and deputy head level?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes an eternally valid point. One does not want important bodies such as the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council to become moribund and sink into a state of torpor. I do not think they will. They will be exceptionally busy in the next few years, because they will be consulting widely as a result of the recommendations of the working groups in various subjects. I am glad that the hon. Member for Yeovil pledged support for the heads' associations.

Mr. Ashdown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Baker: I am a little surprised that the head teacher unions are praising some of my speeches, particularly the one that I made before Christmas, in which I emphasised the role of parents in bringing up children.
It is no good society saying that the blame for social misfits, juvenile delinquents, violence and drugs lies with teachers and schools. The first educators of our children are the parents. It is important that the parents should fulfil their responsibilities to teach their children the basic principles of right and wrong and what they should and should not do. It is no good expecting schools and teachers to do that, if it does not start in the home. There is tremendous support on that from the two head teacher unions, and I am sure that all hon. Members share that view.

Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State leaped like a trout after a fly for that support from the National Association of Head Teachers. It is a false bait. The hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I were at the conference of the NAHT in Cambridge on Saturday. If the Secretary of State had been

there, he would be in no doubt that the NAHT quite properly recognise some of the extremely damaging and dangerous aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Baker: I am a fly fisher, and the trout for which I go rarely leap. They have to be tempted to rise to a well-cast fly. This is not a lesson in fly-fishing, although I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a lesson on any occasion.
As the Bill goes through the House, there is a growing acceptance of its main provisions. There is a growing acceptance of the national curriculum and the processes in it that we shall bring about. There is growing acceptance of the need for financial delegation and for the greater involvement of parents. Before the for hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) jumps up—

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I am just pulling up my socks.

Mr. Baker: It is about time the Opposition pulled up their socks.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition did not seek to divide the Committee on any of the clauses that we are debating. They accepted them. The difficulty that the Opposition have, and why they constantly attack me personally, is that they agree with about 75 per cent. of the Bill. It is difficult for the Opposition to explain to their supporters, such as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), that the Government are on the right lines. The hon. Member for Hillsborough, in his strange, atavistic, neanderthal way, believes that all that has gone wrong with education in Britain in the past 30 years is somehow right, and he is opposed to all the changes that we are making.

Mr. Flannery: Would the Minister kindly explain whether a fly fisherman means a fisherman who is fly, or does it mean something else?
The Government's dilemma has emerged in the first few minutes of the debate. The Secretary of State tells others that they do not know things, but he is clearly out on the horns of a dilemma because we have gone too quickly for the Secretary of State, as well as for the rest of the Committee, and he does not know his stuff.

Mr. Baker: I should not have given way. That is an absurd intervention. We have debated the Bill for nearly 200 hours.

Mr. Flannery: Not enough.

Mr. Baker: Since 1945, only one Bill has been debated for longer. When the Bill returns from the other place, I shall almost certainly be able to say that, since 1945, no Bill at all has been subjected to such extensive parliamentary scrutiny, and that is entirely appropriate. The hon. Gentleman knows that it has been debated at length in Committee. He was not much of an absentee. He turned up regularly. He even turned up on his 70th birthday. I thought that that was very touching. We all wished him a happy day, but none of us said, "Many happy returns."
The Bill and the issues that it raises have been debated in a way that I can barely recall. In the past eight years I have taken three long Bills through the House—two relating to British Telecom and one to the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils. The Education Reform Bill has been debated in much greater detail and depth than any of those.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Let me briefly help my right hon. Friend to evaluate the appreciation of the National Association of Head Teachers' conference by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who was there with me and hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The hon. Member for Yeovil left after an hour, so he did not hear the president say how very much the association would welcome its representatives being included on the National Curriculum Council.

Mr. Baker: I am glad to have that placed on the record. The hon. Member for Yeovil was there just long enough to appear in the footnotes of the conference.

Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman has been arguing that the Education Reform Bill has gained popularity and wider acceptance as it has gone through the House. Why then, according to the most recent opinion poll on educational issues, has support for the national curriculum and the opt-out provision fallen by 20 per cent? Less than one in five now support the opt-out provision for schools. Would the right hon. Gentleman be happy to have more debate, because, with that success rate, he would soon have no supporters at all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that both Front-Bench spokesmen will set a good example by sticking to the new clause that we are debating.

Mr. Baker: You have cut me off in full flight, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to demonstrate the growing and increasing popularity of our measures as shown by the growing support for the national curriculum which, in opinion polls, regularly notches up support of between 60 and 70 per cent.
When we announced our proposal for grant-maintained schools, its acceptance took some time, but support for it in opinion polls varies between 20 and 35 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want it recorded that there is nothing compulsory about grant-maintained schools. It is entirely up to the parents and the governing bodies, if they wish to exercise their right. Many governing bodies and parents will wish to do that, because some will want to save schools that are threatened by reactionary councils or by politically biased councils or where many parents will want to exercise that right if they feel that the quality of education is not high enough.

Mr. Hawkins: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about head teachers being involved in the committees advising on the national curriculum and so on, but head teachers are often concerned about what happens at the level of the individual pupil. Will head teachers determine what proportion of the national curriculum will be suitable for children with special educational needs? They would like some assurance that head teachers will have a fundamental role to play in such decisions.

Mr. Baker: Principally, yes, but such decisions will be held in consultation with particular subject teachers and a teacher who knows something of the child. We are also providing appeals for parents in these matters because they often feel passionately and deeply about their children with special educational needs. In many cases, they do not want their child excluded. We have tried to produce some flexibility so that the experts on the spot—the teachers —in discussion sometimes with parents, can decide what is best for a particular child. One does not want to make the demands upon a child with special educational needs

so exacting that he feels a failure, but at the same time one does not want to exclude a child. Decisions virtually have to be made on a one-off basis.
I know that the intention behind new clause 42 will be welcomed on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is present today, has great experience in these matters having been the head of a special school, and he was very good in Committee. He spoke many times, prefacing each of his long speeches by saying that he would not take long. We shall remember him by that endearing characteristic. He has brought his considerable practical and recent experience to bear on the problems of children with special needs.
In Committee, the hon. Gentleman urged us to consider the need for greater flexibility in applying the national curriculum to those with special needs for whom statements of special need might not be appropriate. The hon. Member for Yeovil also pressed us on the particular point that pupils in the process of being assessed for a statement of special need should not be asked to meet unrealistic requirements. This new clause, along with our other amendments on the disapplication of the national curriculum provisions, offers reassurance on both points.
The clause will allow head teachers—my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) is temporarily out of the Chamber, no doubt in consultation with the National Association of Head Teachers— within limits broadly defined in the clause, and more closely defined in regulations, to modify or disapply the national curriculum with respect to an individual pupil for a temporary period. That point was raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham.
The broad constraints set out in the Bill are, first, that temporary withdrawal from the national curriculum shall be limited to six months, but may be renewable in circumstances defined in regulations. Secondly, the head must give information about his plans for the pupil — one may be dealing here with children who are psychiatrically disturbed and particularly unruly children — to the parents, the governing body and the local education authority.
Thirdly, the information given must include the head's reasons for his action, the provisions to be made for the pupil during the period of withdrawal, and either proposals for the pupil's reintegration with his classmates —an important point for children of this sort — or an opinion that he should be assessed for a statement of special need.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The obvious reason for providing a period of six months is so that the statement can be prepared. The Government were carrying out a survey of how well local authorities were performing their duty to prepare statements, and whether they were managing to do it within the six months. Can the Secretary of State now tell the House the results of that survey? Will he also make it clear that, if a statement is being prepared, it should be completed in six months, and the head should not have to ask for a further extension?

Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise figures in answer to his first question. I shall have to see what progress we have made.
Obviously, an attempt should be made to produce statements within six months. It may well be that, for that


six-month period, no statement is required. It may be that the child who has been temporarily withdrawn can be reintegrated into the normal class. It does not necessarily follow that every child who is withdrawn for six months should have a statement, but it would be better to produce a statement in that period if the child clearly needed one, and was in some way physically or mentally handicapped.
The clause also gives parents the right of appeal to the governing body if the head makes or refuses to make a direction, contrary to their wishes. Government amendment No. 117 secures that the LEA complaints procedure may be used if parents are dissatisfied with the governors' action following an appeal.
We believe that the provisions give the right degree of flexibility, while guaranteeing that pupils with behavioural problems, or temporary needs, such as a crash course in English as a second language, or waiting to be statemented —as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested—cannot be denied for too long the benefits of the national curriculum. The six-month period will, we hope, serve to encourage local authorities to speed up where possible their statementing procedures. It should also avoid disruptive pupils being consigned for too long to "special units" without decisions being taken about the need to reintegrate them into school, or to assess their special needs for long-term provision.
We had an interesting debate in Committee on the important subject of the powers of heads and governing bodies to expel unruly children, or to put them into special education units. Since then, I have appointed a committee, under my noble Friend Lord Elton, to examine disruptive behaviour and violence in the classroom. Among other matters, it will consider the sanctions available to heads and governing bodies for dealing with children with that sort of behaviour pattern.
One of the arguments that have been used by those who are anxious about special education units is that a child can be conveniently put into one and almost forgotten. We want to ensure that if that happens — this helps a particular type of pupil in a particular way—the child's case should be re-examined to assess how it may be possible to reintegrate him after a period of treatment or special education. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome that flexibility.
As is clear from the many interruptions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, this is a complex subject. Hon. Members will have noted that we make provision for consultations about the regulations, which will fill in the detail and set out procedures to be followed in schools and LEAs in implementing the clause.
The hon. Member for Yeovil interrupted me—so passionate was his concern that he has now left the Chamber—about the process of consultation. Of course we shall consult very widely. The National Curriculum Council will be involved, along with various bodies concerned on a daily basis with the interests of children with special educational needs. We shall listen carefully to all the points made to us: the clause is evidence that we have been willing to do so thus far. I am confident that the provisions will benefit many pupils, and that they offer a real improvement on the present position — in which, too often, they and their parents may be left in limbo without understanding, or being able to challenge, the decisions made about their educational needs.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I have followed my right hon. Friend's statement with considerable attention, and I am relieved by much of what he said. Does he not agree that all the evidence that we have received—both the evidence to the Select Committee and that given to other bodies that have considered the matter — has shown that the quality of remedial provision, and the speed with which that provision is made, are essential in any treatment of special needs? We are not talking particularly about those who are being statemented, or those who are close to being statemented. The vast majority of children who require some special needs provision will require it for a short period, and will require it to be applied immediately, like a plaster. Unless that provision is there, much of what the Bill seeks to achieve —for instance, in attainment testing—will fall by the wayside.

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these matters — not only from constituency experience, but from his work for the Select Committee. Some children will, as he says, need special education provision for the whole of their scholastic lives, and indeed beyond that. The policy is to try to integrate those with lesser handicaps into ordinary schools.
I said earlier how proud we should be as a country of the excellence of the provision in special schools. That is one of the most successful parts of the British education system. There is tremendous expertise and devotion there. We are now taking children out of what used to be called hospital schools and moving them into what used to be called special schools, and moving children out of the "special schools" into the ordinary run of schools in the local authorities. That is the pattern for children who are likely to need assistance throughout their lives.
Some children — my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) rightly identified them — need particular help and attention at a particular time, perhaps for a few months, perhaps for a year. They may have behavioural problems, or problems at home. They may simply be unable to fit in, or to relate to other children. That may trigger off other problems as well. For those children, there must be flexibility. The system must be able to respond. Otherwise, those children may become completely alienated from the system, and once that has happened, they may be alienated for the rest of their lives. We have tried to produce that flexibility in new clause 42.

Mr. Ashdown: I am sorry to hear that I could not be absent from the Chamber for rather less than a minute without the Secretary of State choosing my absence as an opportunity to attack me.
The new clauses are welcome, but, if they are so important — I agree that they are—why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen to introduce the measures by regulation rather than by order, as in the rest of clause 4? Is it simply because he wants the opportunity to sign the bottom of a piece of a paper himself, rather than suffering any parliamentary scrutiny on what we both agree to be an important matter?

Mr. Baker: Let me reply first to the hon. Gentleman's point about my comments on his absence. If he aspires to lead his party, the first thing that he must do is develop a thicker skin, and not worry about such things. He must bear the slings and arrows.
The education system contains many procedures, which operate by different methods. Some are introduced by order, and some by regulation. I should have thought that this procedure could operate by regulation. There is not much controversy about it, and there is no controversy at all between the parties. It is a matter on which we have traditionally consulted very widely.

Mr. Flannery: Let me extend the point made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) — who, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, is a member of the Select Committee and was also a member of the last one, when we put out a major document on special educational needs. He stressed that those involved are not only the 2 per cent. who are statemented, but the 18 per cent. who are still in the classrooms, many of whom are very difficult. Has the Secretary of State considered the fact that a great deal of money will have to be spent on special needs so that the 18 per cent. have more teachers and other helpers? All that the Bill contains and its resolutions will be a waste of time if there is not enough money to carry out the proposals.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of resources on every aspect of the Bill. He will be aware that I always reply that we have increased resources substantially in the past two years. In the financial year that is about to start, the amount that we have planned for education is increased by 8·2 per cent. over the previous year. That is a substantial amount of money. The local education authority must decide how to deploy those resources, and that varies from authority to authority. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim and thereby sustain with any credibility that the financial resources in the education system are not sufficient.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough is obviously very reluctant to address the efficient way in which the money is used. If we were looking for a more cost-effective way of using the approximately £18 billion that is available for all the various aspects of education in our country, we would concentrate on better value for money. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Opposition very much welcome the two new clauses. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Education and Science paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who pressed so hard for the new clauses and these provisions in Committee. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend and to others outside the House that they have managed to move the Government is this way.
I fully understand why the Secretary of State felt that he should table the new clauses and amendments. He felt that he had to undo some of the damage that has been done to the Government's reputation in special education during the Bill's progress. We understand why he made his speech. We also understand that he said the right things at the start of his speech and when he addressed the amendments. However, people outside the Chamber will be puzzled and will not understand why the Secretary of State had to fill out his speech with references to trout fishing and other matters that did not add much of substance to his speech.
The Secretary of State obviously felt that he had to say a lot, but he did not have that much to say. He did not address the problem of money. Indeed, he was not going to say anything about money until my hon. Friend the

Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) brought him round to the subject. The right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members are aware that if we are to make a reality of integrating children with special needs into mainstream education, the Government must provide the resources.
It is no good the Government claiming that local authorities have the money in the round to do that. They do not have the money. The Secretary of State is aware that the local authorities have found money in spite of the Government's determination to make cuts. If anything, the authorities have raised educational spending per pupil. The Government have not been producing the money.
There was nothing in the Secretary of State's speech about the money to make the proposal a reality. The Government have shown no real understanding in the amendments of the fact that we have to treat children with special needs as individuals. It has been interesting to see, during the progress of the Bill, the way in which the Secretary of State has learnt about education in this country. He has slowly realised that education is about the needs of individual children and that it is extremely difficult to apply national criteria to categorise those children.
By the amendments, the Secretary of State obviously accepts that the 2 per cent. of children who are statemented will have to be treated as individuals. He has also realised that the requirements of the 18 per cent. whom Warnock described as probably having special needs must be recognised, rather than have a national curriculum and national testing imposed upon them.
The Secretary of State referred to the small percentage — he did not give a figure — of children who do exceptionally well, who are exceptionally able and who reach attainments in school very quickly. He has clearly recognised that they have special needs. It is time he recognised that the majority of children in schools are individuals and have particular abilities and aptitudes. We must recognise that. The Secretary of State must recognise that that causes a problem in imposing testing, especially the kind of testing that the Prime Minister wants.
We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is talking about making exceptions in the legislation for those children whom he recognises have special needs. However, the right hon. Gentleman still considers these children as a problem rather than seeing an opportunity for them to be educated individually and an opportunity for them to bring enlightenment into the mainstream school so that other children can appreciate the particular needs and attributes of children with special needs.
The Secretary of State did not consider dyslexia. He gave us no hint of how he sees the development of the national curriculum with regard to the teaching of English and other subjects, taking into account the special needs of some children with reading and writing difficulties. The only reference in the Secretary of State's speech to reading and writing difficulties related to problems with the way in which the amendments had been tabled.
4.45 pm
One of the most engaging aspects of the House of Commons is the way in which hon. Members can table amendments in appalling handwriting. The printers usually turn those amendments into very good, accurate


English, with a little help from the Clerks. I suspect that most hon. Members would fail any test imposed on children at the age of seven.
The Secretary of State did not address the problem of children with special learning difficulties and how they will be tested and assessed. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to new clause 41 and the categories of pupils, did he recognise that there is a category of pupils with dyslexia? Where do we draw the line in respect of those children? I believe that the major problem is that children have shades of difficulty, and that it is very difficult to place them in categories. I hope that the Secretary of State will even now reconsider new clause 41, when it reaches another place, and realise that it might be better to deal with individuals rather than with categories.
We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has set up his inquiry, under Lord Elton, into the action to be taken over disturbed children. It would be better if a wider group, of people were involved. It might also be better if he had recognised that he might be causing some of the discipline problems. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has ever addressed the problem of how to persuade 14 and 15-year-olds to study subjects that they do not want to study.
By imposing a national curriculum on pupils in that age group, the Secretary of State might create considerable difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been a teacher in the classroom, but I have. I know from experience that trying to teach 15 and 16-year-old pupils subjects that they do not want to study is an extremely difficult task for the teacher. The young person has every opportunity to indulge in disruptive behaviour rather than participate and be helpful in the learning process. If the Secretary of State imposes subjects on 15 and 16-year-olds, he must understand that he may make the discipline problem worse.
Instead of rushing into this legislation, it might have been better if the Secretary of State had considered some of the inquiries first and produced proposals in the legislation for the highly disturbed young person, instead of setting up an inquiry and having to take powers to make regulations. The Secretary of State does not know how he will use those powers.
The Government have not addressed one fundamental criticism that was raised in Committee. They have no plan for developing education for those aged 16 to 19 and over with special education needs. We are very disappointed that there is not another new clause to set out a clear Government policy to ensure that the special education needs of young people are met. I hope that when the legislation reaches another place the Government will have second thoughts and produce proposals in that respect.
I also wish that the Government had said more about statements. There were two major faults with the Education Act 1981—the lack of money and the way in which the statements were aimed at balancing the rights of parents and children. As a result of the lack of resources for local authorities, many do not have sufficient educational psychologists to prepare the statements. Indeed, some local authorities are reluctant to produce statements that will demonstrate that they do not have the facilities necessary for individual children. They are therefore producing the statements far too slowly in some

instances. The Government should have had the results of their inquiry into statementing before they started on this legislation.
I hope that before the Government complete the legislation in the other place they will be able to tell us much more about statementing and will make it quite clear that they will expect local authorities to produce statements and will provide the resources for those statements when they are necessary in the interests of the child, rather than simply providing a limited amount of money to be spent in preparing statements, and limited resources to meet the requirements, which will result in the statements being produced very slowly.
I very much welcome the new clauses, as far as they go, and I hope that the Secretary of State will continue learning and realise that we must treat all children as individuals rather than as categories. As the Bill progresses through the other place, I hope that there will be further progress in the recognition of the special education needs of children, that the Government will put forward proposals for the education of those aged between 16 and 19, that there will be a new statement about statementing and that the Government will continue learning. They have a long way to go if they are to reclaim ground in regard to those with special education needs.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I shall speak briefly about new clauses 41 and 42, and I certainly join hon. Members in welcoming the aspects of the new clauses that relate to children with special needs.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has obviously worked hard to meet the desires of parents and those who campaign on behalf of children with special needs. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) gave us a great insight into that area in Committee. This afternoon, I do not wish to talk about special needs in particular. I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend about those children who are specially gifted, whom he mentioned briefly in dealing with new clause 41, and about how the new clause and the regulations which he will have the power to make will deal with those children.
I wish to deal with the matter more broadly and to talk about those pupils who, at the critical fourth stage, surpass the necessary standards for age 16 when they are still only 14. The Secretary of State has given assurances in Committee and in his speeches outside the House that the national curriculum will not impose a straitjacket on the education system. Anyone who remains sceptical will now be reasonably convinced and reassured, and will have their scepticism removed by the clause.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have listened to the concerns of those who will have to deliver the national curriculum. Indeed, many of them, including heads and teachers in schools, are fully sympathetic to the case for a national curriculum, but had feared that the Bill provided insufficient flexibility at the fourth key stage for pupils aged between 14 and 16, who, at the age of 14, have reached the necessary standards to qualify for testing at the age of 16. New clause 41 moves to reassure teachers and heads who have raised that point.
We should remember that we are setting a curriculum for the end of the century and the beginning of the next century. We must not forget that in 1992 there will be a single European market, and the ability to speak more


than one European language will be very important. That point was raised with my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues by members of the teaching profession. Perhaps, in the context of Europe, the national curriculum may be inflexible in specifying a single foreign language, as some pupils may wish to broaden their knowledge of a second European language. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said that in his view the study of classics is necessary. Again, he has brought to the attention of the House the fact that the national curriculum may be too inflexible.
One could talk about other areas of study. Certainly in my constituency, within the royal borough of Kingston, teachers from the two excellent Tiffin grammar schools raised the possible problems that inflexibility within the national curriculum might impose. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that new clause 41 will give him the power to inject the necessary flexibility into that fourth key stage at ages 14 to 16?

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing new clauses 41 and 42, although I do not believe that he has gone far enough. It is important to remember that 20 per cent. of our school population at some time in their educational careers have special educational needs, and that only 2 per cent. are actually statemented. In other words, 18 per cent. were ignored by the original Bill—that is five or six pupils in each class. In many cases, the 18 per cent. of children who were actually ignored were worse than the 2 per cent. who were statemented in the first place.
Children with special educational needs need programmes that are child-centred and not subject-centred. Under the original Bill, that would not have been the case. New clauses 41 and 42 go a little way to help that problem. Children with special educational needs need programmes for their individual needs, and to force the 18 per cent. of the children that were not statemented to follow the national curriculum was plainly daft.
In Committee, I gave an example of a child who was at my school. When we read his report it said that Johnny did not try hard enough at French. When we tested the boy, we found that he had a reading age of 6·5 which meant that he could not even read English, yet he was being forced to take French. As the Secretary of State has altered the Bill and introduced new clauses 41 and 42, that silly situation should not occur. Frankly, it might well have occurred had the new clauses not been introduced.
I should like to touch on the anomalies in statementing. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the problems of statementing. Statementing is often not necessary because the teacher has a good feeling about what is right for the child and does not require that child to be statemented to provide the course of work necessary for that child to meet his full potential. Many local education authorities have widely differing policies on statementing. That does not mean that they do not have children with special educational needs, but just that they provide in different ways what they regard as the best courses to follow.
The local authorities have different policies on statementing, but even within local education authorities there are discrepancies. Some head teachers flatly refuse to accept that they have children with special educational needs in their schools. They regard it as a stigma. They feel that they can cope with children with special educational

needs and that they do not need to statement them. Children are often not statemented because head teachers know that if a child is statemented and the statement recommends that the child should go to a special school it could affect their staffing ratios. That is appalling, but it has happened.
5 pm
Many head teachers in nursery and primary schools are often reluctant to refer children for statementing. It is only when a child is in its third or fourth year at secondary school that the head refers it, usually because it has become disruptive. That is because the child cannot cope with the curriculum and the head teacher wants to get rid of it. I hope that new clauses 41 and 42 will solve that problem. However, we do not want a rush of statementing, because it could clog up the system and nobody would benefit. There must be flexibility. The Secretary of State referred to flexibility, and I hope that he was sincere when he did so.
Since the passing of the 1981 Act, much progress has been made in integrating children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. The new clauses provide that such children will not be tested and compared with their peers. That would have been damaging; it would have put the clock back. Many children would have been humiliated. It would have meant that, if a child could riot cope with the curriculum, it would be put into a corner with a jigsaw puzzle and told to get on with it.
Children with special educational needs require a broad and balanced curriculum designed to meet their individual needs. They must be allowed to work at their own pace; they must not be pressurised. Teachers have a gut feeling about what is right or wrong for a particular child. Teachers should not be put into a straitjacket. The Bill allows head teachers and the experience of teachers to play a great part in dealing with children's special educational needs, but I hope that the Bill will not hinder the professionals from doing their job. It would be a pity if the Bill put too much power into the hands of the Secretary of State.
I welcome the new clauses, even though they are slightly disappointing. They do not fully meet the needs of children with special educational needs. They refer only to the national curriculum. What about the rest of the Government's proposals? Open admissions and financial delegation are not included in the clauses. I wish that they were. I hope that they will be included in the Bill when it reaches the other place.
Despite what was said by the Secretary of State, sufficient resources were not provided to implement the 1981 Act. Local authorities and schools have had to face great difficulties. I ask the Secretary of State to make additional resources available, particularly for special schools, if progress over integration is to be made.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has great experience of special schools. He and I were involved in the debate on the 1981 Act that deals with special educational needs. I welcome the Bill in its entirety. I have reservations about parts of it, but other parts I welcome with excitement and full approval.
There should be a national curriculum. It is a concept that I have always defended. In addition, there must be testing, but that creates problems for children with special educational needs. If there is to be testing and if school


results are to be examined, some heads may not want to have certain children in their schools. It is important that these children should be given a fair deal and that schools should be encouraged to keep children with special educational needs. That was the intention of the 1981 Act. The new clauses, and the accompanying amendments, will provide a better deal for those children. If there is to be a national curriculum and testing, it is important that the egos of children with special educational needs should not be hurt.
When we refer to children with special educational needs, we think of those with learning difficulties. We do not think enough about talented children. It is essential that their talents should be developed to the full, but we are not doing as much for them as many other countries are doing. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the new provisions will also help children who are able to take examinations early. If a child is gifted enough to be able to learn three or four languages by the age of 15, the core curriculum should not restrict him. I hope that children with special talents will not be placed under a handicap by not being able to develop fast enough under the core curriculum.

Mr. Ashdown: I, too, welcome the new clauses and the accompanying amendments. Before I comment on their substance, it would be useful if the Secretary of State could refer to the amendments because I want to put a technical question to him.
Government amendment No. 117 extends the complaints procedure of clause 15 in relation to schools that take children up to the age of 16. We shall be dealing shortly with new clause 43, for which I pressed hard in Committee. The Government promised to introduce a new clause to cover that point, and I am delighted to see that it is now included in the Bill. It ensures that certain complaints, consultation and other procedures that apply to the national curriculum covering mainstream age groups also apply to any extension that the Secretary of State puts in place to cover those aged between 16 and 19. That, too, is welcome.
New clause 43 picks up the wording of clause 15 in respect of complaints, consultation and other information procedures. However, Government amendment No. 117 does not appear to apply to those aged between 16 and 19. It would be useful if the Secretary of State could explain to the House why new clause 43 applies to those between 16 and 19 but not Government amendment No. 117.
The new clauses are welcome. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely right when he said that we ought to judge the Government not on the wording of the new clauses, welcome though they may be, but on their substance. The record shows that, whatever the theoretical position may be as a result of this new clause, the reality as it is experienced by children with special needs is that resources are hopelessly inadequate to put into operation even the legislation currently on the statute book, let alone that which might be put on the statute book.
The 1981 Act was an excellent Act and was widely welcomed: if only it had been carried through from legislation into practice; if only it had meant as much as

it could mean because the resources were there to put it into effect. But I suspect that the 1981 Act is more honoured in the breach than in the observance in Britain.
I see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), shaking his head. He must know, as I certainly know from my experience in Somerset and elsewhere, that the whole movement towards statementing would be more comprehensive, more effective and faster if it were not for the situation described very accurately by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who said that local education authorities often simply do not have the resources to statement children and therefore either slow up or sometimes do not statement children. The 1981 Act, excellent though it is, is nevertheless significantly deficient in its application because the Government will not put resources behind it.
I predict that, even if these very welcome clauses are in operation, they will not mean very much until the Government are prepared to put resources where their mouths are. So far, they have failed to do that. We see this most clearly in the lacunae that still exist over speech therapy, where the Government will not clarify the position of children who need special speech therapy services, but simply allow a legal muddiness to exist about whether the local education authority or the area health authority should provide the service. Into that hole fall many hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of pupils in Britain who cannot get special services in respect of speech therapy because the situation is allowed to remain legally unclear; providing authorities can say that it is not their responsibility, while the Government refuse to clarify the position. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that we pressed him on this in Committee, and many others have pressed him on it too. He will not provide any clarification, and that is simply not acceptable.
I want to turn briefly, because I agreed with very much of what he said —I suspect for the first time—to the very important point made by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey): that this meant genuine variations in the national curriculum. We shall discover that these variations, put into effect in a very specific, minor collection of cases, would be very welcome in other areas of the curriculum as well.
It is, unhappily, only too indicative of the Government's attitude towards children with special needs that they exempt those children and then leave them by the wayside. We ought to be having a positive statement about what we do, because all the Bill says is how they are removed from the main stream, there to be abandoned, without resources and without any positive framework for the provision of the special services that they require.
How much better and how much more in keeping with the Government's rhetoric about giving parents choice it would be if the Government would allow schools, on a vote of all parents, to opt out, in whole or in part, of the national curriculum, if they so wish. If the Government really want to give power to parents, rather than the Secretary of State of the day, why do they not give them that power? We had a long and detailed discussion about whether the independent sector ought to be brought within the constraints of the national curriculum. Perhaps we argued that the wrong way round. Perhaps we ought to be giving the maintained sector the same freedom to depart from the national curriculum as the independent sector currently enjoys.
That was the burden of an amendment that I tabled, which of course has not been selected. How much better it would be if we allowed variation at the choice of the parents, at the will of the parents, on a parental vote, from the national curriculum—not just in respect of children with special needs, but in respect of all children. That really would show that the Government are interested in parental choice. We see instead, however, a Government interested in the power of the Secretary of State and central direction.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was somewhat harsh in his reference to the 1981 Act. It was, after all, an enabling Act, and it is significant that some local authorities have done a great deal more than others. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) was formerly the chairman of the Enfield education committee, and I am advised that in Enfield an excellent standard of education was provided for children in special need. It is also fair to tell the hon. Member for Yeovil that it might be helpful if he listened, rather than have private conversations with others sitting in the Gangway, because in fact the resources are available if the will is there. It is certainly necessary to have the will, though.
My right hon. Friend referred to the input of head teachers and others to the national curriculum. Like other hon. Members, I certainly welcome the fact that head teachers will be able to make a substantial input; it is clearly right that they should do so.
I also appreciated my right hon. Friend's comments about the training of head teachers. I am concerned because, although the NAHT makes provision for training head teachers, clearly what it does, although a step forward, is not enough. Therefore, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will make special and adequate provision for the training of head teachers. It has to be done in order that heads and their deputies may have a good knowledge of their new responsibilities and powers. Clearly, there should be no shortage of funds for the training of head teachers.
I want to refer to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), and in particular his remarks about gifted children. He was absolutely right to draw attention to this facet of the education scene. Clearly, we need to encourage gifted children. If they are not encouraged and stretched, they will lose interest. That was the point that my right hon. Friend made at some length.
I believe that gifted children, too, are important and that we must not lose sight of their talents and needs. The curriculum must be capable of holding their interest and imagination. If we fail gifted children, we shall be depriving the nation of the substantial talents and qualities that they possess.
It is right that emphasis should be put on those with special educational needs — a point well made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is clearly extremely knowledgable on this matter. Indeed, he combines knowledge and modesty to an engaging degree. When he speaks on these matters, the House listens.
I argue that children with special gifts have rights and that we have responsibilities to them. An example from my own constituency leads me to believe that in many local education authority areas the needs of gifted children are

not understood. Unless we have the correct facilities and unless gifted children are able to receive the appropriate teaching and training, their talents will be diminished.
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had to say when he referred to
the needs of individual children.
He was right to draw attention to that. Gifted children, too, are individuals, and it is entirely right that they should not be forgotten in this Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I am strongly in favour of what the Secretary of State had to say about handicapped children being accommodated in normal schools, where possible.
Secondly, I am very unhappy about what he said regarding head teachers, on the grounds that, although they may have the right to hire and fire, it means that they get bogged down in administration. Often they are some of the best teachers in the school. It is a great pity that facilities are not made available for them to do more teaching.
I refer to a letter about the
National curriculum task group on assessment and testing report".
The letter was written by Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Toni Jeffrey. I should like to ask two questions about the substance of that letter. The second point made by the Prime Minister's private secretary is:
Second, the Prime Minister notes that the philosophy underlying the Report is that tests are only a part of assessment, and that the major purpose of assessment is diagnostic and formative rather than summative. As a result the method of assessment places a heavy responsibility on teachers' judgements and general impressions. She is also concerned to note the major role envisaged for the LEAs in the implementation of the system.
It is relevant to ask, what was the Secretary of State's reply to the Prime Minister on that point of substance? The House deserves to know what he has said in reply. I think that there is a good reply to be made, but some of us are curious to know what he has said.
The third point that the Prime Minister makes is:
Third, the Report does not pull together the overall costs of the exercise, but the general impression is that these would he very large.
That is the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The letter continues:
In view of the recommendation in section xix, the Prime Minister wonders whether, for example, the group has considered the likely costs of training teachers prior to implementation and the regular annual costs of teachers' time once the system was in operation.
Can the House be told something about the cost?
Finally, I should like to ask another, and rather long question. On 14 March I tabled a question to the Prime Minister, asking
what steps she is taking to discover the source of the leak of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey in relation to educational testing; and if she will make a statement.
As often, the answer was:
It is not the usual practice to give information on such matters." —[Official Report, 14 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 425.]
Forgive me for saying this, but it was rather different in those 11 days at the Old Bailey when I attended the trial of Clive Ponting—sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander!
Be that as it may, on 21 March I asked the Prime Minister
if, pursuant to her answer of 14 March, she will set up an inquiry to discover the source of the leak of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey on educational testing.
The Prime Minister's answer was a non sequitur:
I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 14 March, at column 425."—[Official Report, 21 March 1988, Vol. 130, c. 19.]
For what purpose did Mr. Bernard Ingham's office authorise the disclosure of that letter from the Prime Minister's private secretary to the private office of the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Unfortunately, on Question No. 8 to the Prime Minister, a closed question, I had in mind a specific question on Mr. Ingham—

Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am finding it difficult to relate the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to the clauses that we are discussing. I remind him that we are discussing them under a timetable motion.

Mr. Dalyell: The letter was headed, "National curriculum … and testing". That was the subject of the letter. I can save the House a great deal of time with just one final question. Is there going to be a leak inquiry; and, if not, why not? The Secretary of State can answer that question easily. Well, silence speaks volumes. I ask the Secretary of State once more: is there going to be a leak inquiry?

Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State has had his chance. The silence is deafening. I do not want to take up my colleagues' time, but people will have to draw their own conclusions—

Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I get the strong impression that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is about to sit down. Yes, he has sat down. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Hawkins: It is nice to have something to do with these two new clauses and not see the guillotine being misused to get into the newspapers.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested — I thought unfairly — that the Government were not showing proper concern for those with dyslexia — —[Interruption.] It is not a speech — I merely want to ask the Secretary of State a question. I thought, and still think, that the drafting of the new clauses, especially new clause 41, is so wide as to include all children with special needs, including those with dyslexia. To get the record straight for those outside the House, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the problems of those with dyslexia can be covered under the clause and that their special needs will be properly considered?

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I want to speak briefly. I welcome the fact that the Government

have listened to some of the representations that have been made to them on educational special needs. However, they have once again missed a marvellous opportunity. The reality is that we are seeing the gradual unpicking of the national curriculum, and we are going to see more of it as the week goes on.
From the beginning we said that if the Government had been starting from the right end—that is, looking at the needs of children and the ways in which one encourages and enables them to learn—they would have looked at the national curriculum very differently. They would have considered what a child needs in order to learn, and at cross-curricular activities, and so on. They would have looked at the flexibility that every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon has recognised as necessary when addressing the needs of different children in different situations.
The reality is that initially the Government gave us a hidebound boxed method, which is clearly nonsense when one comes to address children with special needs. I regret tha even at this late stage the Government have not taken the opportunity to look at the national curriculum in a new way. I also deeply regret that they have not fulfilled their commitment to address the needs of the 16-plus. they gave that commitment at the end of 1981, but they have not yet fulfilled it. They have not met the sincere and almost desperate pleas of organisations such as the National Association for Handicapped Students.
I think, and hope, that the Government will look at this matter much more seriously. No one outside their own Front Bench is convinced that those needs have yet been adequately addressed. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I should like to make a brief contribution to this important discussion and to welcome the two new clauses. I welcome also the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in establishing, under the Bill, a national curriculum. That is warmly to be welcomed. I have long felt, both in my 23 years at all levels of the teaching profession and since, that it is absurd for children in, say, London, to have one curriculum and on moving to York to find that children of the same age are studying something entirely different. That cannot be right, and it cannot have contributed to the prosperity of our country. It is high time that that matter was put right.
Another aspect of the success that the national curriculum will bring to children and schools is the standardisation in teaching. That is welcome also. By standardisation, I mean standardisation in methods. If children are taught in a particular way in one part of the country, it is valuable for them to be taught similarly, and with a similar curriculum, in another part of the country, but without total standardisation. The Bill will achieve that.
5.30 pm
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the logic of a national curriculum means that schools will, as a result, have curriculum-led staffing? If he is able to accept it, even if only gradually, teachers will match the curriculum to the needs of the children. That has not always been the case. There has been an unsatisfactory situation in many schools and local education authorities, and it is high time that the situation was put right.
I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about heads and serving teachers at all levels being


members of the National Curriculum Council. I am certain that they will make a continuing and dynamic contribution to the council and will be an essential part of it.
On the question of special needs, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the value of these new clauses lies in the state-maintained child having access to a wide range of subjects in the curriculum of ordinary schools. That is the achievement of the Education Act 1981, and of the Bill, and it is to be warmly welcomed.
I have experience of Sedgehill school, with 2,200 children. It contained the largest unit in the country for partially-hearing children, with about 57 children. Some of them were stone deaf and others were not so deaf. Some might think that the integration of those children with special difficulties into that very large school would cause them to be overlooked, but it had a tremendous effect. The other children always took care of those with hearing difficulties, who ran around with their hearing aids on. They took part in normal physical education lessons and in the curriculum generally in an almost normal way, yet they received the special help that they needed as partial hearers. That was of the highest value. I believe that the Bill will enhance such education and I warmly welcome it, for that reason and for many others.

Dr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has given the House an excellent example of the importance of an integration policy. However, what concerns many of us is that, having had an integration policy after Warnock, where the special needs of children caught up, as it were, with the rest of the system, the rest of the education system is now going ahead with its so-called national curriculum.
The children with special needs — the 18 to 20 per cent. to whom we have referred — will be made an exception. These new clauses attempt to deal with that. They could be seen as providing for children with special education needs by taking them beyond the provision of the national curriculum, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, but they do not prescribe or clearly indicate what will be available instead for these children.
The Secretary of State has told us that he will produce regulations. What I shall pursue with him is the form of consultation about pupils with special educational needs. It has been argued ever since the Warnock report was published that some form of advisory council for special educational needs should be set up. New clause 42 refers to consultation. It is important for the Secretary of State to specify, either now or in the other place, how he intends such consultation to take place.
As a result of a report issued in 1984 by the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children, an attempt was made to establish some kind of national advisory committee. The problem here is that individual children with special education needs will be stereotyped, yet again, within the classrooms. Their needs overall, across the curriculum, will not be taken into account. They will be seen, not as individuals, but as exceptions to the rule of the national curriculum, rather than being catered for in a positive way. An advisory body, or perhaps a body with stronger powers, could have an important role in representing the educational needs of such children. This could be introduced nationally within the proposed new structure in England, and within the Curriculum Council for Wales.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether the Government intend that the membership of the National Curriculum Council will include persons with special interests in special education. It it does not, it will mean that yet again this area of education will be excluded. We are dealing with 18 to 20 per cent. of pupils, as has been said repeatedly in the debate. This consideration applies not only to the need for an advisory committee on curriculum development for England and Wales, but to the additional resources that need to be made available, as we have also mentioned in the debate. The Government have made small concessions in this part of the Bill, but, with regard to implementing the rest of the Bill, the special education needs of children have been neglected.

Mr. Flannery: I should like to continue the debate with a major point about resources. Clearly, the two new clauses relating to special needs contain provisions that we are not struggling against, although there is much more to be said, and the second new clause is lengthy.
On the question of resources, we have heard some nonsense from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He has a peerless record in the House of never saying a phrase or word against his Government. One cannot get anywhere with people like that, because they always say what is cautiously good for themselves rather than examining the problem.
The hon. Gentleman canonised the Secretary of State and almost all the Conservative Front Bench throughout the Committee stage. He has said that there is not a problem of resources. I do not know how anyone who knows anything about schools can possibly say that. I used to be on a committee of the National Union of Teachers that dealt with special needs, and it was made up of dedicated people from all over the country. Its great problem was that it was so highly specialised that only two members of that committee of 33 dealt with hospital schools, and only one of them, for example, dealt with some other subject. It needed a whole mass of people. One person could never learn everything about the specialised subjects.
The amount of money that is necessary for special needs is very clear. It is very expensive for pupils to reenter mainstream education. People thought it would be easy for pupils with special needs to re-enter ordinary education. Such an approach has been tried in mental hospitals, and as a result many poor souls are wandering about because there is no back-up for them and no money. It is the same with special education. Unless it is backed up with money, a commitment to special education is an idle piece of piousness.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said correctly, that we are not talking about a block of perhaps 2 per cent. or 18 per cent. of children. This issue concerns perhaps six children in most primary classes. They make up the bulk of that 18 per cent. We are trying to cater for the 2 per cent. It amounts to a teacher having perhaps one disruptive child in a class of about 30 children. There are many classes with about 30 children. If one speaks to that child's teachers, they may say that the child is holding back the education of the other pupils.
This is a fundamental point. Back-up is required so that these children can be taken out of a class and another teacher can look after them. To say that the resources are available if one looks for them is the most dishonest


claptrap. Such an attitude shows that the hon. Gentleman has never entered a school. We need more resources. That is the lesson of special needs.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Like the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) I believe that, while these new clauses are to be welcomed for the flexibility they give to special education and children with special needs, nevertheless they fail to provide for proper integration of children with special needs into the national curriculum and the system of testing.
Because one cannot talk about the national curriculum without talking about a system of testing, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was valid. I know that the Secretary of State was appalled at the leak of the letter from his Department. I believe that there should have been an inquiry to find out what happened.
The system of testing is the major drawback in applying the national curriculum to children with special needs. Families with such children want them to be part of the national curriculum but are apprehensive about the tests which the children will have to take; they are afraid that their children will be branded failures. The Secretary of State should tell us something about the tests which he proposes for these children.

Mr. William Cash: I have had a special problem in my constituency in relation to dyslexia in respect of which I have corresponded with the Minister of State several times. In a nutshell, there are times when a dispute occurs between the local education authority and the persons employed by the local education authority who are responsible for making the assessment of whether or not dyslexia is properly identified. It is a difficult problem. The British Dyslexia Association has taken the question up several times.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing forward this most important provision as an amendment. I sincerely hope that it will be used in a manner which will help resolve the difficulties which I have outlined. Parents of backward children have an instinct about why their children are backward. Some parents have exaggerated ideas about why their child is backward. From my experience of studying various cases, I have come to the conclusion that, if not for ideological reasons, certainly for qualification reasons, the persons who have the job of making the assessments tend too often to go on railway tracks. As I have said, on various occasions I have raised the matter in correspondence with the Department.
In that context I am particularly interested in the provisions of subsection (6) of new clause 42 and its relationship to subsections (7) and (8). In the last line of subsection (7), the specific right of appeal to the governing body is given to the parent, although the clause has already conferred on the head teacher the original power under the provisions in subsection (1). In subsection (8), there is in pursuance of the appeal the power for the governing body to confirm the head teacher's action or to
direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances".
Then it becomes the duty of the head teacher to comply with those directions.
In no sense am I seeking to be critical; I merely wish to inquire. When one goes back to subsection (6), one sees that there is an equivalent duty on the local education authority, on receiving the requisite information described there to consider—these are the important words—
whether any action on their part is required in the case of that pupil under section 5 of the 1981 Act".
I simply make the point about whether there may not be a potential conflict between the procedure relating to appeal and readjudication of the head teacher's decision by the governing body on the one hand and the duty of the head teacher and the duty of the local education authority on the other to consider whether or not to put what is being asked for into practical effect.
I invite the Secretary of State to consider that question. In the context of my experience in my constituency of Stafford, I would be extremely keen for a proper resolution of the question and not a potential conflict of functions and duties.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting debate. I am glad to see such strong support from all sides of the House for the thrust of the two new clauses and the amendments which go with them. Hon. Members have made various points which I shall try to answer. My hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) all talked about the problems of gifted children. They posed the question whether the brightest and most able children would be able to move through the national curriculum more quickly than the rest. In my opening remarks, as those who were here will remember, I said that there was a possibility of provision for this very point; yes, they would be able to.
There is nothing in the proposals to stop a child with outstanding ability in, say, mathematics, from learning that subject in a class of older children. He or she would be assessed against the attainment targets at the same time as the rest of the class and could move on into the sixth form with the other pupils. The attainment targets and programmes of study for each core and foundation subject will also reflect the whole range of likely attainments at each key stage, from the most to the least able. The bright or gifted child will be fully stretched throughout the period that he or she studies the national curriculum. That is important. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton has been particularly concerned about this point and has brought a delegation of parents to see one of my ministerial colleagues about it. I hope he will think that we have met the point.
The question was also asked whether gifted children educated in a class of their own age group, not with older pupils, will be able to take the GCSE early and move into the sixth form, or drop a foundation subject in which his or her attainments are already those expected at 16, in order to take other subjects at GCSE—possibly more science, a second foreign language or perhaps classics. We have received a number of representations pressing on us that we should allow the most and the more able children to drop foundation subjects if their attainments are already those expected at age 16. We certainly do not want the Bill to rule out that possibility. New clause 41 will give us flexibility to make special provision for such a pupil, but we do not want to lay down the rules now as to how that


provision should apply. It is a matter for consultation, on which I shall value the advice of the National Curriculum Council.
There are difficult judgments to be made about the level of attainment which a pupil should demonstrate before being allowed to drop a subject. It also seems that there are good reasons for saying that the ablest pupils should continue with the core subjects and foundation subjects until the age of 16 to the highest level of which they are capable. I hope that my hon. Friends who were concerned about the matter, as indeed we are, will feel that there is sufficient flexibility to allow for the gifted child.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) spoke most eloquently about the matter. Various hon. Members have paid tribute to him because he knows a great deal about it. The House would be wise to listen to him, because he said some sensible things about statementing. He first said that there should be no rush into statementing. Those who have dealt with children with special educational needs have felt this quite strongly. The decision to statement a child must be a very individual decision. It must be taken most carefully. It should not be seen as a decision to he taken precipitately. It is a very important decision.
The hon. Gentleman rightly counselled care. He said that some children would not benefit from statementing. I am sure that he has personal experience of such children. Others, who are not experts in dealing with children with special educational needs, may feel that a child should be statemented. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that some parents feel strongly that their child should be statemented, while others feel strongly that he or she should not. The hon. Gentleman had experience of the problem as a teacher and I commend strongly to the House what he has said.
The hon. Member for West Lothian, if he is still the hon. Member for West Lothian—

Mr. Dalyell: Linlithgow.

Mr. Baker: Those of us who were here at the time remember the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as the hon. Member for West Lothian because of the famous West Lothian question. I must tell him that we have developed the concept and devised an East Oxford question, which is all about academic freedom. The hon. Gentleman posed the West Lothian question because it could not be answered. That is why it was such a brilliant device. We have built on his experience and posed the East Oxford question, which also cannot be answered. I shall pose it to the House yet again not tonight but on Thursday, when we consider the question of academic freedom.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question that can be answered very easily: is there to be a leak inquiry?

Mr. Baker: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman is very preoccupied with this matter. He has moved on from the missing log book of the Belgrano to the missing log book of the Department of Education and Science. I do not intend to say whether there will be a leak inquiry. He must address such questions to the Prime Minister.
On the hon. Gentleman's comments about the alleged differences between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me on assessment and testing, I can only say

that I am delighted that, according to its Front Bench, the Labour party is now in favour of Professor Black's report. Opposition Members have been enthusiastic in saying that they are in favour of Professor Black's report.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Fulsome.

Mr. Baker: As my hon. Friend says, they have been fulsome, and I am delighted, because Professor Black's report recommended that there should be assessment and testing at seven 11, 14, and 16. Many Opposition Members said that it would be impossible to establish a committee in the educational world that would come up with age-related tests. [Interruption.] Many in the teaching profession and the unions said exactly that, so I am glad that the Labour party is now committed to age-related assessment and testing, at seven 11, 14 and 16. I am delighted that they have made that progress.
Professor Black also said that there should be pencil and paper testing at seven 11, 14 and 16 and I am delighted that the Labour party is now committed to that. Professor Black went on to say that the results of the assessment and tests should be published. [Interruption.] I have been asked to answer questions and I must make the best use of the time available to me. I am delighted to hear that the Labour party is committed to the publication of assessment and tests to allow parents to assess the success or failure of schools. I welcome Opposition Members' support for those progressive measures.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) felt that new clauses 41 and 42 and the amendments represented an unpicking of the national curriculum. I do not look upon them as such, and nor does any other hon. Member who has spoken. It has been accepted that, in introducing the new clauses, we have recognised the strong points put to us by hon. Members —including the hon. Member for City of Durham—in Committee and responded to representations from outside the House and from hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—about the need to recognise the problems of children who are statemented and children who are not statemented. That is important.
We have now injected into the national curriculum a degree of flexibility, particularly for such children. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West will know that we have always envisaged flexibility. Clause 10 as drafted allowed flexibility for statemented children, and, as the hon. Lady knows, we amended it in Committee to improve it. There was also flexibility in clause 4(3), and we have built on that in the new clauses.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conway (Dr Thomas) asked about consultation. Clearly, we would want to take the advice of those who are expert in dealing with special needs, of whom there are many. Various associations and groups of teachers and some of our own inspectors are expert in such matters. Local authorities, too, have advisers and inspectors. We are developing the national curriculum not only in respect of special needs, and we shall want to draw on the advice of experts because they have a great deal to offer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), drawing on his wide experience as a schoolteacher, strongly supported the measures, and I am sure that they will lead to better treatment of children with


special needs in facing up not only to the problems,—about which one tends to think too much—but to the opportunities of the national curriculum. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North and for Stafford said, many children have special learning difficulties of one sort and another—particularly in learning to read—and we try to recognise that fact.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I am reminded that at a meeting of the National Association of Head Teachers in Cambridge, addressed by the hon. Members for Ealing, North and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and myself, the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party was not interested in the publication of league tables of test scores of schools. Is that also the view of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Baker: The publication of schools' results, not for children aged seven but for those aged 11, 14 and 16, which is what Professor Black recommends, will make it possible to assess the school in the context of its area. The results of the tests and assessments will be published and made available in the education authority's annual report and in the local newspapers. The local community, including parents, will be able to assess the performance of their school and judge it in relation to other schools. That is what is envisaged.
Unlike Opposition Members, we want to ensure that every possible piece of information is made available to parents so that they can assess the school. That is the thrust of our proposals. A later clause deals with open enrolment, which will increase parental choice. Parents will be able to decide on the basis of the best information available which school in their area is better for their children. Surely that is what the House requires, although some Opposition Members may not require it, and some of the teachers' unions were totally opposed to it until a few weeks ago.

Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the argument is about whether the information published is fair and takes account of a child's background so that it does not lead to a distortion of teaching to the average. The Secretary of State made what I thought was an important statement when he excluded the possibility of publishing test results at the age of seven. Is that now Government policy?

Mr. Baker: Professor Black recommended that the results should be published at 11, 14 and 16. He said that it would be difficult to assess a school according to its results for children aged seven because the children have been in the school for only two years and they enter the learning process at different ages. Some children start learning to read and write at three or four, while others start at five. Professor Black recommended that there should not be a statutory requirement to publish results at that age, but that the matter should be left to the discretion of the head teacher. We are consulting on that. I should tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—we have debated this in Committee — that that is an attractive solution. It is a good idea not to make it statutory but to allow head teachers, if they wish, to publish. That is what Professor Black has recommended.
Finally, I should like to deal with points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).

Mr. Hawkins: What about dyslexia?

Mr. Baker: I am trying to answer all the various points that have been raised.
I will not go back over the question of resources because the hon. Member for Hillsborough knows our argument on that. He made an extraordinary accusation. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilwoth of being loyal to his Front Bench. That is an accusation that we never level against the hon. Member for Hillsborough.

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution this day to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on new clauses moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Six o'clock.

New Clause 42

TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL PUPILS

'—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations enabling the head teacher of any maintained school, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed—

(a) to direct as respects a registered pupil at the school that, for such period as may be specified in the direction (the "operative period" of the direction), the provisions of the National Curriculum—

(i) shall not apply; or
(ii) shall apply with such modifications as may be so specified; and

(b) to revoke any direction give by him under the regulations and to vary any such direction except so as to extend its operative period.

(2) The conditions prescribed by the regulations shall, in particular, limit the period that may be specified in any direction given under the regulations to a maximum period specified in the regulations; and any maximum period specified in the regulations in relation to directions given under the regulations or in relation to directions so given in any circumstances so specified—

(a) shall be either—

(i) a fixed period not exceeding six months; or
(ii) a period determinable (in such manner as may be specified in the regulations) not later than six months from its beginning; and

(b) may (without prejudice to section 180(5) of this Act) differ according to whether or not the direction in question is given in respect of a period beginning immediately after the end of the operative period of a previous direction or within such period after the end of the operative period of a previous direction as may be specified in the regulations.

(3) Where a head teacher gives a direction under regulations made under this section in the case of any pupil or varies any direction so given, he shall give the information mentioned in subsection (4) below, in such manner as may be prescribed—

(a) to the governing body; and
(b) where the school is a county, voluntary or maintained special school, to the local education authority;

and shall take such steps as may be prescribed to give that information also to a parent of the pupil.
(4) That information is the following—

(a) the fact that he has taken the action in question, its effect and his reasons for taking it;


(b) the provision that is being or is to be made for the pupil's education during the operative period of the direction; and
(c) either—


(i) a description of the manner in which he proposes to secure the full implementation in relation to the pupil after the end of that period of the provisions of the National Curriculum' or
(ii) an indication of his opinion that the pupil has or probably has special educational needs by virtue of which the local education authority would be required to determine the special educational provision that should be made for him.

(5) Where the head teacher of a grant-maintained school includes such an indication of opinion as is mentioned in subsection (4)(c)(ii) above in information given to the governing body under subsection (3) above, he shall also give that information, in such manner as may be prescribed, to the local education authority.
(6) It shall be the duty of a local education authority, on receiving information given to the authority under this section by the head teacher of any maintained school which includes such an indication of opinion with respect to a pupil, to consider whether any action on their part is required in the case of that pupil under section 5 of the 1981 Act (assessment of special educational needs).
(7) Where the head teacher of a maintained school—

(a) gives, revokes or varies any direction with respect to a pupil under regulations made under this section;
(b) refuses to give, revoke or vary such a direction in response to a request made, in such manner and circumstances as may be prescribed, by the parent of a registered pupil at the school; or
(c) fails within such period as may be prescribed following the making of such a request to give, revoke or vary such a direction in accordance with the request;

the parent of the pupil concerned may appeal to the governing body.
(8) On any such appeal the governing body may—

(a) confirm the head teacher's action; or
(b) direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances;

and it shall be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any directions of the governing body under paragraph (b) above.
(9) The governing body shall notify the appellant and the head teacher in writing of their decision on any such appeal.
(10) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.' — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 43

EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS

`—(1) The Secretary of State may by order direct that the provisions of sections 5 and 6(1)(b) of this Act shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to pupils of compulsory school age included a reference to persons in secondary education or full-time further education who are over that age but have not attained the age of nineteen;
(b) any reference to a maintained school included a reference to an institution required to be covered by a scheme made under section 116 of this Act and, except in relation to a local education authority—

(i) any institution within the PCFC funding sector; and
(ii) any institution (other than a university) which provides further education and is a grant-aided institution; and


(c) any reference to the head teacher of such a school included a reference to the principal or other head of such an institution.

(2) An order under this section may make such consequential modifications of section 7(4) of this Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(3) In relation to persons in relation to whom sections 5 and 6(1)(b) of this Act have effect by virtue of an order under this section, section 14 of this Act shall have effect—

(a) with the modifications mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) above of any relevant references in subsections (1) and (6);
(b) as if the information referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) were information with respect to the following matters—

(i) the qualifications authenticated by outside persons (within the meaning of section 5 of this Act) for which courses of study are to be provided by or on behalf of the school or institution concerned for such persons as are mentioned above in this subsection;
(ii) the courses of study leading to such qualifications which are to be so provided;
(iii) the syllabuses which have been provided or determined for the purposes of those courses; and
(iv) the results of the assessments of such persons for the purposes of those qualifications; and

(c) with the omission of subsections (1)(b), (2) and (3).

(4) The reference in section 15(1)(b) of this Act to section 14 shall not include section 14 as it applies by virtue of subsection (3) above.
(5) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, anti added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

GRANTS IN RESPECT OF MANDATORY AWARDS

`(1) For each financial year beginning after the day on which this subsection comes into force the Secretary of State shall pay to each local education authority a grant equal to the aggregate amount paid in that year by the authority under section 1(1) of the Education Act 1962 (awards for persons attending first degree courses and comparable courses).
(2) Payments of grants under subsection (1) above shall be made at such times as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.' [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, anti added to the Bill.

New Clause 45

GRANTS FOR THE EDUCATION OF TRAVELLERS AND DISPLACED PERSONS

`(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment to local education authorities of grants in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them in making provision the purpose (or main purpose) of which is to promote and facilitate the education of persons to whom this subsection applies.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to a person if—

(a) by reason of his way of life or, in the case of a child, his parent's way of life he either has no fixed abode or leaves his main abode to live elsewhere for significant periods in each year;
(b) he fell within paragraph (a) above within a prescribed period immediately preceding the making of the provision in question.
(c) he is for the time being resident in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) above may—



(a) prescribe classes or descriptions of expenditure in respect of which grants are payable under the regulations;
(b) provide for the determination of the amount of any grant so payable;
(c) provide for the payment of any such grant to be dependent on the fulfilment of such conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations; and
(d) provide for requiring local education authorities to whom payments have been made under the regulations to comply with such requirements as may be so determined.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

GRANTS RELATING TO AIDED OR SPECIAL AGREEMENT SCHOOLS

`(1) The Secretary of State may pay grants to the governing body of any aided school or special agreement school in respect of any preliminary expenditure incurred by them for the purposes of any scheme for the transfer of the school to a new site or the enlargement or alteration of the school premises.
(2) Where any persons propose or are considering whether to propose—

(a) that a school established by them, or by persons whom they represent, should be maintained by a local education authority as an aided school; or
(b) that a school which may be so established should be so maintained;

the Secretary of State may pay grants to them in respect of any preliminary expenditure incurred by them for the purposes of any scheme for the provision of a site for the school or of any buildings which would be school buildings.
(3) Grants under subsection (1) or (2) above may he paid in respect of any such scheme as is mentioned in that subsection whether or not—

(a) the details of any such scheme had been formulated at the time the expenditure was incurred;
(b) where such details were not formulated at that time, they are subsequently formulated;
(c) the governing body or persons in question had determined to proceed with any such scheme at that time, or
(d) where the governing body or persons had not determined so to proceed at that time, they subsequently determine to proceed with any such scheme.

(4) Expenditure in respect of which such grants are payable includes, in particular, costs incurred in connection with—

(a) the preparation of plans and specifications for any proposed construction, enlargement or alteration of buildings which are or would be school buildings; and
(b) estimating the sums which would be expended if any such works were carried out;

but does not include any sums expended in carrying out any such works.
(5) A grant under subsection (1) or (2) above shall not exceed 85 per cent. of the expenditure in respect of which it is paid.
(6) Where—

(a) a grant is paid under subsection (1) above in the case of any school; or
(b) a grant is paid under subsection (2) above in the case of any school which becomes, or is established as, a voluntary school;

the grant shall for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act or section 82 of this Act be treated as expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the school premises.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47

GRANTS: MISCELLANEOUS

`(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment of grants to bodies other than local education authorities whose object or main object is, in his opinion, the promotion of learning or research.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) above may provide—

(a) for the payment of any such grant to be dependent on the fulfilment of such conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations; and
(b) for requiring bodies to whom payments have been made under the regulations to comply with such requirements as may be so determined.

(3) In section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act (grants to persons other than local education authorities) for the words "for the purposes of educational services provided by them or on their behalf or under their management" there shall be substituted the words "by them for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision (or proposed provision) of educational services".'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 54

STAMP DUTY

`.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer effected under or by virtue of any of the following provisions of this Act, namely—

section 8(2);
section 59 (taken with Schedule 8);
section 79(4);
section 80(2);
section 105 (taken with Schedule 8);
section 107(1)(b);
section 109 (taken with Schedule 8);
section 113(2);
section 140(1) and (2);
section 150(1);
section 158(5);
section 166(5) and (7); and
section 179 (taken with Schedule 8).

(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer to a local education authority under or by virtue of section 79(6) or 85(2) of this Act of property which immediately after the transfer is held by the authority for the purposes of an institution (or institutions) falling within subsection (3) below.
(3) An institution falls within this subsection if it is—

(a) a university;
(b) an institution within the PCFC funding sector;
(c) an institution which provides higher education or further education (or both) and is either—

(i) maintained by a local education authority; or
(ii) designated by or under regulations made under section 27 of the 1980 Act as an institution substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act;

(d) a school maintained by a local education authority; or
(e) a grant-maintained school.

(4) No instrument (other than a statutory instrument) made or executed—

(a) under or in pursuance of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above; or
(b) for the purpose of giving effect to any such transfer as is mentioned in subsection (2) above;

shall be treated as duly stamped unless it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for this section (and, if applicable,


section 129 of the Finance Act 1982), be liable or it has, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it has been duly stamped.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 55

REPLACEMENT AND VARIATION OF SCHEMES

`—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a scheme may be replaced or varied by a subsequent scheme made under section 23 of this Act by the local education authority concerned.
(2) Section 23 shall apply for the purposes of a scheme replacing or varying a previous scheme with the omission of subsection (1); and subsection (1) of section 24 of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a scheme.
(3) A scheme prepared by a local education authority under section 23 which—

(a) replaces a previous scheme; or
(b) makes any significant variation of a previous scheme;

shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval.
(4) A scheme under section 23 varying a previous scheme which is not required by subsection (3)(b) above to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval is referred to below in this section as a "minor variation scheme".
(5) Subsection (5) of section 24 shall not apply in relation to a minor variation scheme.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order specify what descriptions of variation are to be regarded as significant for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above.
(7) Where a local education authority propose to make a scheme under section 23 which in their opinion is a minor variation scheme, the authority shall notify the Secretary of State in writing of their proposal, giving brief particulars of the nature of the variations proposed to be made by the scheme.
(8) In any such case the authority shall, if so required by the Secretary of State, send to him a copy of their proposed scheme; and it shall be for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not any variation proposed to be made by the scheme falls within any description of variation specified in an order under subsection (6) above.
(9) A scheme made under section 23 may also be varied by a direction given by the Secretary of State, as from such date as may be specified in the direction.
(10) Before giving such a direction the Secretary of State shall consult the local education authority concerned and such other persons as he thinks fit.'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 56

COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

'— (1) This section applies to any school to which section 33 or 34 of this Act for the time being applies which is a community school.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a school is a community school if—

(a) activities other than school activities ("non-school activities") are carried on, on the school premises; and
(b) all non-school activities which are so carried on are carried on under the management or control of the governing body of the school.

(3) A scheme may provide for applying sections 33(3) and 34(10) of and Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to persons employed to work—

(a) partly for the purposes of school activities and partly for the purposes of non-school activities carried on on the premises of a school to which this section applies; or

(b) solely for the purposes of non-school activities so carried on;

as if all activities so carried on were school activities.'.— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 57

PROVISION FOR DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS BY GOVERNING BODIES OF COUNTY, VOLUNTARY AND MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS

'In section 8 of the 1986 Act (proceedings and tenure of office of governors of county, voluntary or maintained special school), in subsection (7) (provision that may be included in regulations made by the Secretary of State as to meetings and proceedings of governing bodies, etc.) the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (a)—
(aa) for the establishment of committees by the governing bodies of such schools (whether or not including persons who are not members of the governing body concerned) and for the constitution, meetings and proceedings of such committees;
(ab) for the delegation of functions of the governing body of any such school in prescribed circumstances to committees established by that body, to any member of that body or to the head teacher;".'.— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 58

REPLACEMENT AND VARIATION OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING SCHEMES

`—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a scheme may be replaced or varied by a subsequent scheme made under section 116 of this Act by the local education authority concerned.
(2) Section 116 shall apply for the purposes of a scheme replacing or varying a previous scheme with the omission of subsection (1); and subsection (1) of section 117 of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a scheme.
(3) A scheme prepared by a local education authority under section 116 which—

(a) replaces a previous scheme; or
(b) makes any significant variation of a previous scheme;

shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval.
(4) A scheme under section 116 varying a previous scheme which is not required by subsection (3)(b) above to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval is referred to below in this section as a "minor variation scheme".
(5) Subsection (5) of section 117 shall not apply in relation to a minor variation scheme.
(6) The Secretary of State may order specify what descriptions of variation are to be regarded as significant for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above.
(7) Where a local education authority propose to make a scheme under section 116 which in their opinion is a minor variation scheme, the authority shall notify the Secretary of State in writing of their proposal, giving brief particulars of the nature of the variations proposed to be made by the scheme.
(8) In any such case the authority shall, if so required by the Secretary of State, send to him a copy of their proposed scheme; and it shall be for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not any variation proposed to be made by the scheme falls within any description of variation specified in an order under subsection (6) above.
(9) A scheme made under section 116 may also be varied by a direction given by the Secretary of State, as from such date as may be specified in the direction.


(10) Before giving such a direction the Secretary of State shall consult the local education authority concerned and such other persons as he thinks fit.'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 59

SUPERANNUATION FOR STAFF OF FURTHER EDUCATION UNIT

'— (1) The persons to whom section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 applies (persons to or in respect of whom benefits may be provided by schemes under that section) shall include—

(a) persons who at any time after the coming into force of this section are serving in employment with the company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1948 and known at the passing of this Act as the Further Education Unit; and
(b) persons who at any time before the passing of this Act have ceased to serve in employment with that company;

and accordingly a reference to that company shall be inserted at the appropriate point in the alphabetical list of "Other Bodies" in Schedule 1 to that Act.
(2) That company shall pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to this section in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under that Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night there was an extension of the money resolution in order to deal with the question of student grants. We had the odd procedure whereby the Minister of State did not tell the House what it was about. The hon. Lady chose to move the resolution formally and to wind up the debate, and, skilfully, she ran out of time and failed to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Interestingly, the Government chose not to tell us what it was all about.
If one considers the opening speech and reply of the Secretary of State, it seems that he has again skilfully avoided the new clauses in question being debated. I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would give consideration, in selecting amendments at a later stage, as to whether it would be possible for us to return to the issue of student grants, because there is a suspicion among Opposition Members that the Government have moved amendments that have given them the opportunity to pave the way for student loans and we would want to pursue that issue.
I know that you cannot commit yourself on future selection, but I hope that you will bear that in mind. We are extremely suspicious that the Government have deliberately contrived the business so as to avoid there being an opportunity for us to probe that issue.

Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There are 13 new clauses tabled in this group and, because of the guillotine, we have discussed only two.

Therefore, all the others—this needs to be placed on the record—are not discussed. That is what has happened and it seems to be a terrible violation of democracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the resolution of the House. However, I shall discuss with Mr. Speaker the point that has been made with regard to the selections for further days. As the House knows, Mr. Speaker has not yet made his selections for the remaining days of consideration of the Bill.

New Clause 1

STUDY GRANTS OR EDUCATIONAL MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES

'The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring local education authorities to provide educational maintenance allowances for pupils aged 16 to 19'.'—[Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 2–16–19 Education—

`(1) Within 6 months of Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on education and training for 16 to 19 year olds.
(2) Such a report shall deal with financial support to enable 16 to 19 year olds to remain in full time education, the need to integrate education and training provisions for 16 to 19 year olds; and a review of all examinations and forms of continual assessment for 16 to 19 year olds to ensure they are compatible and will enable a young person to build up a range of skills and knowledge for their own sake or for entry into Higher Education or work.'.

New clause 18—Further and Higher Education—

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, within three months of the date of Royal Assent, to lay an Order in draft before each House of Parliament for approval to make provision for the matters specified in subsection (2).
(2) The Order specified in subsection (1) above shall provide for local education authorities to have the duty to undertake functions in relation to strategic planning of post-16 education provision outside schools, including


(a) the drawings up of strategic plans for such post-16 provision;
(b) the undertaking of negotiations with the Manpower Services Commission over the provision of courses;
(c) the submission of plans to the Secretary of State; and, in relation to (c) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to such plans in making any determination relating to the funding of provision to which this section applies.'.

Mr. Fatchett: It is a pleasure to have yet another opportunity to debate with the Minister of State. She has told me privately that there were certain difficulties last night and that she was about to lose her voice. Therefore, she found that moving the money resolution formally had certain advantages. I explained subsequently that I was in a somewhat similar position. I will try not to move the new clause formally, so as to give the Minister some time to be ready to answer the debate.
I note that there is an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). It is typical of amendments moved by the hon. Member for Yeovil and I wondered whether, at some stage, he would be moving our own new clause. He has just failed to get the amendment right in those terms. Those of us who watched the hon. Gentleman's performance in Committee will be interested to note that today he has brought with him reinforcements—or should I say, reinforcement. For this


important debate on 16-to-19 education we now have with us the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). Therefore, the two spokespersons on education for the alliance are present.
I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that poses a problem for you. If both hon. Members were to stand and seek to catch your eye, there may be some difficulty in deciding who gets preference. I realise that the hon. Member for Yeovil may be gallant enough to give preference to the hon. Member for Greenwich. He may be gallant enough to secognise that, according to the recent opinion poll, the hon. Member for Greenwich now represents more people in the country than the hon. Member for Yeovil. There may well be a problem in terms of the normal courtesies of the House in respect of making a choice there.
Before we begin this important debate I should like to say that the Secretary of State was in a slightly unhappy mood during the first debate. He said that the Labour party had resorted to personal criticism of him. I am sorry that it has pricked him in that way. I can say genuinely that we will not do it again, and we promise the Secretary of State—I shall convey this promise to him when he is in the Chamber with us—that we will not criticise him if his colleagues stop doing so, particularly if the Prime Minister stops. We can then all work on the same basis.
There was little chance in Committee to debate the important educational area of post-16 provision. It is a crucial area and one that all political parties need to address as we move towards the next century and the problems that will be created for our economy in terms of new skills and the education and training for those new skills.
It is not an understatement to say that in many respects post-16 education faces a crisis. It is not a crisis of under-performance, because the HMI reports have spoken favourably of what is performed in further education in our tertiary colleges and our sixth forms. I believe that it is a crisis of identity. It is a crisis of future orientation and a lack of innovation and direction on the part of the Government.
The Government tell us regularly — they are right; there is no criticism of this—that a modern economy needs to give its labour force the ability to adapt to new technologies and jobs. That is the basis of a skills economy. It is the basis of a knowledge economy for the next century. We need people with adaptable skills who will enable Britain to compete successfully with other countries. Other countries are already investing in adaptable skills and we feel that Britain is not making the same necessary investment.
If we look at the way in which the Government meet the challenge, we can see that on all figures of international comparison the Government fail in their ability to persuade youngsters at the age of 16 to stay on in full-time education or in high-quality training. That is a loss not just to the country but to the individual. Leaving school early and putting good education and high quality training behind one is a loss to the individual in terms of future opportunities. Every time a youngster leaves good-quality education or training at the age of 16, that youngster is having certain doors closed on him or her. As I have said, it is a loss to the individual and to the economy.
If one looks at the comparisons that can be made between this country and our major competitors, one can see that we perform badly in terms of persuading

youngsters to stay on in education at the age of 16. About one third of youngsters in this country stay on in full-time education. Our competitors improve on that substantially. In countries such as Sweden, it is a rare exception for a youngster to leave good-quality education and training at the age of 16. The same is true of Denmark, the United States, Holland, Japan, France, Italy and Germany. All our major competitors fare better than we do in this area.
I am not making a partisan or party political point here. There is a deep cultural problem in this country and staying on rates have not been good under any previous Government. But we must face this crisis if we are to compete in the skills and knowledge economy of the next decade and century. What has happened before is irrelevant to the way in which we build for the future.
One of the Government's arguments is to say that we now have the youth training scheme and that if we take youngsters on that into account our figures bear some international comparison. Two things need to be said about that. First, all hon. Members know that there are good-quality youth training schemes — and appalling ones. The YTS varies in quality. The best schemes can compete internationally, but the medium and worse ones cannot. So including YTS figures makes the figures biased.
Secondly, there is an interesting irony in the British education system. In the debate on special education that we have just had, there was a genuine concern about children performing at one end of the spectrum and about those at the other end. There is an irony that is germane to this context, too. Our post-16 provision does not give a broad enough base in training and education to equip our youngsters with the skills and abilities that they need to manage their economic performance and their lives.
The YTS provision is specific and narrow. We do not build up a range of skills in youngsters on YTS; we build up one specific skill that enables them to find some opportunity in the labour market. A-levels, too are very specific, which is the other part of the irony. We offer youngsters doing A-levels an equally narrow education and training until the age of 18. By contrast with every other western European country, therefore, we have two specific forms of training. Those other countries aim for broader post-16 training.

Mr. David Madel: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Is he saying that 16 is the wrong age at which to test people? Many of the countries that he has mentioned do these examinations at 17½ and 18. Is the fundamental flaw in this country our obsession with exams at 16—and probably with doing so many examinations?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a point that I shall come to later. It is a valid point about the nature of the qualification and examination system in this country. It should be an important item on the agenda for future discussions in the education world.
There are other problems, too. Government statistics show that the number of youngsters going into full-time and higher education will inevitably decline because of demographic factors during the next decade. That decline is an opportunity in some respects and a challenge and worry in others. It is a challenge and worry because, unless we persuade more youngsters of the post-16 age group to stay on, we shall not reinvest in the skills base that the British economy will need into the next century. Also, we


shall not have the opportunity to develop that generation if we miss this chance to invest more in youngsters, because there is now a smaller age group than before. That is the opportunity.
6.15 pm
Another aspect gives rise to anxiety, and I do not want to sound critical about it. In the past few years, during which there has been an increase in youth employment, many youngsters have gone out to find the jobs that are available. That makes economic and domestic sense for families, but we must be worried about the jobs that many of them are taking in the labour market. There are figures to support the argument that some jobs lack skills, training, and the chance to hold aspirations or find future opportunity.
We are creating a two-tier labour market and the youngsters going out into the second tier will find that their futures hold little in the way of training or enrichment of their jobs and lives. So, while we welcome the increase in youth employment, we are also concerned that many of the jobs to which youngsters go will offer little training or hope of satisfaction.
The picture of British education for post-16s shows that the system is not performing well on international comparisons, that it is too specific and narrow and that it is not necessarily adaptable to future requirements. It shows, too, that fewer youngsters are staying on after 16, partly for demographic and partly for employment reasons. There is a potentially damaging lack of investment in young people and their future skills, and we need to do something to reverse the process.
It is a great shame that the Secretary of State, who had all this legislative time, has not thought post-16 education important enough to go on the education agenda. The crisis exists and I should have hoped that the Secretary of State, the Ministers and the Government would have responded to it.
How can we change the depressing cultural feature of many youngsters being driven away from educational opportunities at the age of 16? As a country, we must set ourselves a simple target, which has been achieved by many of our competitors. It is the single most important target for the education system: the goal of making it possible for all our youngsters to stay in education and of effectively raising the school-leaving age to 18—not on a compulsory basis, but by creating a cultural climate in which they will all expect that it will be possible for them to stay on in good schools and training in which to build their future lives and satisfactions.
I offer the Government two suggestions on how this is to be done. First, the crucial precondition for effective post-16 education for all our youngsters is to recognise that there is a need to provide a financial incentive for the youngsters of many working-class families to stay on after the age of 16. All the available evidence is that many families face a financial burden in supporting youngsters staying on post-16. There is a financial incentive to persuade the 16-year-old youngster to join the labour market and take those jobs which I have described, which are without hope and training.
How many families in each of our constituencies include youngsters, especially girls, who have been told that the best thing for them—in fact, the only thing that

is necessary in the context of the family—is to find a job rather than stay on in good education and training? We must create an incentive for youngsters to stay on in education. The Government must seriously consider the possibility of educational maintenance allowances.
Secondly, we must consider the whole system of post-16 qualifications. There is a plethora of qualifications, many of which are not understandable to employers, parents or youngsters. We need to be radical and have a system that is understandable. Such a system should have two characteristics. First, it must be modular and portable so that youngsters can build up the skills and qualifications to take with them into their future lives and employment. Secondly, the qualifications should not become specific so that they are divisive and provide categories of youngsters who are either technically qualified or academically qualified. The qualifications should be sufficiently broad to give the technically able youngster a broad general education.
We have had a debate on the national curriculum. Sadly, I have not noticed one Minister—I apologise if Ministers have done this—consider the need to provide basic literacy and numeracy skills for our post-16 education system. We have failed miserably in providing our youngsters with an understanding of the society in which they will make their living. How many of our youngsters leave school at 16 with an understanding of our great institutions? There are many opportunities post-16 on which we should build. Qualifications should not be divisive. They should be broad, which would fit in with the objective of the system being modular and portable. I hope that that partly answers the point made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel).
One of the great weaknesses of the British education sysem is that we live in a culture of failure rather than success. Someone once said to me, appositely, that the British education system would probably get its ultimate satisfaction in failing someone with a PhD thesis. We should find a way to provide an education that assesses youngsters' abilities and considers those abilities in terms of success rather than failure. We create barriers when youngsters are 16 which limits them to being seen as either failures or successes.
I remember commenting at a meeting in Weston-super-Mare that the most effective way to assess youngsters would be to judge what they can perform against their ability. I made the point that, if I were to be thrown into the sea at Weston-super-Mare, it would be a great success if I could swim 10 yards. Some wag in the audience said, "If anyone from this place can find the sea at Weston-super-M are, he would also have great success." The ability of an individual to swim a metaphorical 10 yards and to see that as a success is crucial in our education system. Rather than praise success, our education system often seems to look for failure and to limit people because of that failure.
There is an urgent need to re-examine all our provision post-16. That should be given an important place towards the top of our education agenda. Post-16 provision is a crucial investment in this country's future. It is about time that the Government acted with the urgency that the need for good post-16 education requires from a Government who are thinking about the future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that there is a lot of ground to cover in a short period; brief speeches will be very much in order.

Mr. David Madel: I shall follow your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has made an important and interesting point. I agree that we need to give young people more encouragement for what they have achieved from their education. I agree that, because of the continuing high unemployment in certain parts of the country, it is important to encourage people from homes where there is unemployment to stay on at school or go into further education.
We should look at the new clause in the context of the Government's forthcoming publication on the future of student grants and loans. I note that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) is here. He too, served on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts between 1979 and 1983 when we considered the possibility of grants and loans and concluded that there should be a mixture of the two, although we were not specific as to amounts.
We must let the GCSE settle down. It is one of the greatest upheavals that we have ever had in the education system. I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that teachers are doing in trying to get it right. It is a mere six or seven weeks before the first examination.
To encourage people to have greater faith in and enthusiasm for education, there should be much greater use of school buildings, homework should be done at school rather than at home and there should be much greater use of libraries for education purposes. There must be a sea change in attitudes to staying on at school from not only pupils but their parents. Whether they change will depend on what is on offer. I hope that, once the GCSE has settled down, people will feel that the curriculum is wider, better and more relevant and provides a better opportunity to get a job.
Before we allow new clause 1 to be passed, we should consider possible changes in child benefit and in tax allowances for people whose children stay on at school. I do not disagree with the spirit of new clause 1, but there are many other matters to be considered. I agree with the comment of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that there should be urgent re-examination of post-16 education. After this huge Education Reform Bill has been passed, we want gentle and cautious experiment, rather than another great upheaval.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I found a great deal with which to agree in the speeches of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), both of whom believe, as I and other Opposition Members do, that education should be an enabling experience, extending opportunities to all our citizens, as well as equipping society with the skills and knowledge that it will need for the 21st century.
Any major educational reform worthy of the name should therefore address at its heart the extension of opportunity and access, both through adequately resourced arid properly planned provision and by encouraging and supporting participation. It should especially encourage the participation of those people whose social and economic disadvantage is compounded

by their under-representation in education and training, which too often bequeaths poor opportunities and limited expectations from one generation to another.
There is no group for whom that is more important than those in the 16 to 19-year-old band who will be among the principal victims of the divisive and still half-baked aspects of the legislation. They will suffer as a result of the destructive competition which open enrolment and opting out would usher in. They will suffer especially as a result of the attack on planning and co-ordination, as the role of education authorities is undermined. They will pay the price for the absence from the Bill of an effective strategy for education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.
6.30 pm
Moreover, the Bill is inflicting that damage on the already scandalously unsatisfactory situation in which only 32 per cent. of young people in the United Kingdom remain in full-time education after 16, compared with 79 per cent. in the United States, 70 per cent. in the Netherlands, 69 per cent. in Spain, 58 per cent. in France, 48 per cent. in Italy and 44 per cent. in West Germany.
That neglect of education and training for young people is unique in the industrialised world and is further aggravated by the shortcomings of the youth training scheme. Unfortunately, the good projects in that scheme are vastly outnumbered by those which are no more than cheap labour devices and which have a great deal more to do with manipulating the unemployment figures and undermining wage levels than with developing real skills or providing real jobs.
As the Government have palpably failed to provide any effective strategy for the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, the House owes it to our young people and to the cultural and economic future of our society to amend the Bill to provide such a strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central referred to some of the elements of that strategy. I want particularly to address the question of financial support for those staying on in full-time education after 16. Anyone who considers the evidence cannot dispute that there is a need for such financial support. The longitudinal analysis by the national child development study showed the benefits for those who stayed on at school and the extent to which young people were leaving school for financial reasons. As we would expect, those who were disadvantaged at 16 were most likely to leave because, as they put it, "The family needs the money."
Similarly, an analysis by Brown and Madge of the Social Science Research Council and DHSS-funded studies into the cycle of deprivation concluded:
The provision of funds to enable older children to stay on at school is grossly inadequate and should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
Such evidence and pleas have fallen on deaf ears so far as the Government are concerned, and the Bill will do nothing to help the situation.
The Government deny both independence and opportunity to young people under 18. The Bill especially penalises those families who are low-paid or unemployed and for whom maintaining a young person in full-time education imposes a cost which is all too frequently insupportable. I do not suggest that the introduction of an allowance will, of itself, remedy the situation and compensate for the cultural failing within our society to expect and encourage young people to stay on at school,


but it is indisputably necessary for us to make progress towards greater participation in education and training after the age of 16.
We need mandatory allowance provision which can make a real difference. No one would deny that such provision would have a substantial cost and that further consultation on the details of its operation and relation to child benefit and tax allowances, for example, would be necessary. We should consider that not simply as a cost, but as an investment, which is more than worth while in terms of extending opportunity and of equipping society with the skills and knowledge that we need for the future.
In the past week, the Government have spoken a great deal about incentives. We have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer redistribute colossal sums of money to the very rich for totally unneeded and unproven incentives. It is high time that the country and the House rose to the challenge and created incentives where they are really needed to enable all our young people to have a good education. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 1. I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Ashdown: In such debates as this there is always a sense of deja vu. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) commented on that. I had a sense of deja vu when he spoke because, as so many times in Committee, it was a pity that he spoiled a good speech by making puerile comments at the start.
I have always believed that the Labour party was unfit to govern Britain, not because it is shot through by the extreme Left, but because it is out of date. When the hon. Gentleman spoke about my party, he clearly showed himself to be out of date and does not even appear to have read the weekend newspapers.
What was even more telling was that the hon. Gentleman accused me of falling back on the device of amending new clause 2, thus omitting completely the fact that I have tabled new clauses 24 and 25. However, Labour Members have constructed events in such a way that those new clauses are unlikely to be debated. I have had to take the Labour party's wishy-washy, generalised, unspecific and soggy new clause and seek to put some flesh on it. That happened time after time in Committee because Labour Members never did any hard thinking about alternatives.
The Labour party is in the middle of what I can only call "reviewitis". Rather than tackle any of the problems, its initial reaction is to have a review and to call for a report. The Labour party is currently reviewing and reporting on its policy as a whole. If we consider the new clauses tabled by Labour Members, we find exactly the same thing. Whenever Labour Members need to take a hard decision, as in the case of education for 16 to 19-year-olds, they call for a report. On the issue of staffing nursery classes, Labour again calls for a report, rather than putting down any specific proposals. If we consider new clause 8—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking too many new clauses at a time. Let us stick to the new clauses 1, 2 and 18.

Mr. Ashdown: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely saying that, of the 11 new clauses tabled by the Labour party, no fewer than five make no specific recommendations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not heard me. We are debating new clauses 1, 2 and 18, and I hope that he will confine his remarks to them.

Mr. Ashdown: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely it is in order to answer the attack made upon me by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. I have one sentence to say. Of those new clauses, a full five make no proposal but simply call for a report. That is why I put down the particular amendment that was attacked by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman should have taken that view at the start of his speech.
The Labour party's new clause is welcome, so far as it goes, because we shall have to move towards the establishment of educational maintenance allowances. The question really is what will happen if we do not do something in that area. The evidence is perfectly clear. The number of students in further education in Britain is depressingly, perhaps even tragically, low.
Compared with other nations, about 30 per cent., depending how one calculates it, of students in Britain stay on in education, whereas, in most cases in the more advanced industrial nations, the rate is at least double that, and frequently more. In Japan, the rate is about 90 per cent., depending on how it is measured. Therefore, there is no question but that we must take some steps now to ensure that an appropriate number stay on in education after the age of 16.
To pick up a point tellingly made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), we shall soon come to a point in our education system where we are not talking about the 14-to-16 age hand but about a 14 to 18-year-old band. Within a decade or so we may well find that GCSE, although an entirely admirable model of an exam, will have withered away in importance and we shall be looking much more at the 18 age group. We must encourage the rate of participation in further education.
According to the Government's statistical bulletin of November 1987, participation rates post-16 rose in the early years of this Administration between 1979 and 1982, but since 1982, in the last four years for which figures are available, there has been a full 7 per cent. fall-off rate, while other nations have been making commitments to increase theirs. France, whose participation rates are roughly equivalent to Britain's, has made a public commitment that by the middle of the 1990s it wishes to see participation rates rise from 30 per cent. to around 75 per cent., at which point the British participation rate will still be languishing at less than half that of the French.
The new clause addresses the question of what should he done. The conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central is that we should have educational maintenance allowances. Those have an important part to play, but they will not be the whole story. First, they will be expensive. According to answers to parliamentary questions, even at current participation levels, with an educational maintenance allowance set at supplementary benefit rates, the cost will be about £300 million. If the educational maintenance allowance was set at youth training scheme rates for 16 and 17-year-olds, the cost would be in excess of £600 million. That would be the cost at current rates of participation.
I hope that when the Minister replies she will tell us whether the Government have made any studies into how the establishment of educational maintenance allowances


would raise participation rates, and, if so, how much. I know that that would be a prediction, but it is important to know whether there are any such figures so that we can have an adequate debate.
I strongly suspect that participation rates are held down in Britain, not just for financial reasons, but for cultural reasons. That matter must be tackled. If raising participation rates is our aim, we should be tackling that cultural question by beginning to build a system which widens our definition of participation. It is my view, and that of my party, that we should be constructing a youth training scheme which is not separated from Britain's educational system, but is tied into it, both in terms of qualifications for the participant being drawn within the general framework of national qualifications, and also so that a YTS pupil can obtain credits which could then be accumulated and enable the pupil to pass into further education on a more academic basis, or, indeed, on a higher education basis later.
6.45 pm
I look to a further and higher education system which encompasses training and vocation, bringing training and education within the same department, and academic qualifications. That should be flexible and there should be an easy transfer between the vocational and the academic routes.
If we could achieve a system whereby even those who went through YTS could accumulate credits which would enable them to participate as late developers in the academic process, we should be reaching a valuable position. Educational maintenance allowances have a part to play in that, but setting up a much more flexible system of the sort that I have described would tackle the fundamental problem of the level of participation.
The Government have missed a great opportunity. In their review of student support, they could have taken into account the 16-year-olds. It may well be that they could not reach a conclusion, for reasons which we can well understand, but if that review of student support had taken into account the 16-to-18 age group, we would have begun to tackle that which must be tackled in the future by a Government of whatever party if we are to face up to our needs as a developed industrial nation.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I do not want to pursue at any length the preamble of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), but, since he drew attention to his own amendment, I looked at it and saw that it begins with the possibility of containing recommendations as to the possible need for an advisory committee. I do not know the definition of sogginess, but that description would seem to apply to his amendment.

Mr. Ashdown: There is no mention of "possibility".

Mr. Rowlands: It says, "as to the need". It is all about possibilities.
Financial promises for 16 to 19-year-olds in communities such as mine are in a hopeless mess and have been made worse by the changes in the Social Security Bill 1988 and the removal of benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds. Youngsters who go to college or university from my area receive a grant from the council. If they go on a youth training scheme they receive a training allowance, but if they stay on in further education at a technical college or in the sixth form, they are entirely dependent on child benefit.
In other words, the vast majority of those who want to stay on in full-time further education in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and, indeed, in most other communities, are dependent on their parents and on child benefit. Moreover, that benefit has been frozen and is looked at askance by Conservative Members. It is time that, irrespective of the solution, we recognised the hopeless mess of financial provision for 16 to 19-year-olds which militates against making sensible choices in further forms of educational development.
At least the Government should respond to appeals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and others to look at the whole question. After all, it should be part and parcel of their objectives. I do not know whether the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plans are approved by the Government, but I am sure that they are supported by the Government. Let me draw the Minister's attention to the corporate plan of the Manpower Services Commission in Wales for 1987 to 1991. Under the heading "Implementing the New Training Initiative," it states:
The aim of NTI Objective 2 is to move towards a position where all young people enter the labour market with a qualification relevant to employment. By 1991 the Commission would like to see the vast majority of young people in Wales entering the work force with recognised and relevant vocational qualifications.
We all agree with that objective.
The corporate plan continues:
To achieve this, there will need to be a comprehensive and coherent provision for all young people under the age of 18 to allow them to choose between continuing in full-time education entering training or a period of work experience combining work-related training and education. The role of the YTS and TVEI in achieving this aim would need to be developed in conjunction with other developments.
That is exactly what we lack, in financial terms. In communities such as mine, youngsters between 16 and 18 cannot make reasonable choices between staying on in full-time education, adopting a YTS and going on to a university or polytechnic. The local education authority funds no one except those taking up university or polytechnic education.
Parent after parent comes to me—especially around September—saying, "Mr. Rowlands, we cannot afford to send our youngster to the technical college for Further full-time education." Some used to take the opportunity of the under 21-hour rule, but that has disappeared as a result of the changes contained in the Social Security Bill. The choice between full-time education, training and a period of work experience is not open to many households in communities such as ours. The choice is made for them—it is a financial choice.
How could anyone possibly recommend a family to keep children on into the sixth form, or put them down for the technical college, when they could receive £28 or £35 a week on YTS? The present financial provisions are distorting the choices that should be available to those youngsters, no doubt throughout the nation but certainly in my community, in which financial provision becomes paramount when youngsters reach that age.
I have teenage kids. It is not much to say that they are taller than I am, but they are taller than most people. They eat like horses. They are fit and healthy 16 and 17-year-olds.

Mr. Pawsey: They would make good forwards.

Mr. Rowlands: Yes. We produce very good forwards as well.
The notion that youngsters should be kept on child benefit at 17, 18 and, indeed, 19 is nonsense, and it has been made even more nonsensical by the mixing and merging between the Manpower Services Commission and further education. The Merthyr technical college now has MSC-funded courses, with people on YTS allowances working alongside youngsters in full-time further education whose parents are in receipt of child benefit. That mixing and merging of post-16 education—which the Government have encouraged through large-scale back-door financing of technical colleges through the MSC—along with the growth of TVEI and the growing percentage of non-A-level sixth-form courses, demonstrates the change in further education which has become something that we can no longer recommend. The financial provisions, however, do not reflect that change.
We may not have all the answers, but the maintenance allowance suggested by new clause 1 is certainly a start. If we make that a statutory duty, we can then work out how to finance and organise it. If the Government do nothing else, let them recognise that we must not allow the distortion of choices on narrow financial grounds to continue.
The other problem in my community has arisen from the decline and destruction of the manufacturing sector — the collapse of the other form of training, the in-service apprenticeship schemes created by many of our companies. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry speaks interminably about new training and the need for modern technology. But, in the past decade or so, we have seen the destruction of effective apprenticeship schemes in company after company as a result of the pressures on the manufacturing sector. We have also seen young people with great potential chasing the poorer jobs that demand less qualification. They are going down in the labour market. It is even more difficult for the poorly trained and unqualified to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder.
That has been one of the saddest features of the past decade. Young people who could have proceeded to A-levels and polytechnics have opted out to get a job and an income, and to get a foot in the door. They have gone for the lowest possible clerical jobs in the Civil Service rather than stay on in education—partly for financial reasons, and partly because of worry that, however well qualified they are, they may not subsequently obtain a job. As a consequence, those at the bottom of the ladder have been pushed even further down—even further from a proper job and training opportunities.
Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept new clause I, I hope that she will make a clear commitment, as a matter of urgency, to review financial provision for 16 to 19-year-olds, so that we can remove the anomalies and distortions in communities such as mine and people can make a choice based not on money, but on their aptitude and training abilities.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: When confronted with a cart and horse, for both of which one has some admiration, it is difficult to say that because the cart is before the horse, it should be rejected. I believe that a great deal of what we have heard, both from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), has much in its favour. The provision for 16 to 19-year-olds

is indeed in a muddle, partly because of the creative ways in which the Government have begun to try to gnaw away at the traditional distinctions between one kind of education and another, and between one kind of pupil and another. I do not consider it inappropriate to suggest that the funding should be carefully examined.
I have no clear picture in my mind of how many 16-year-olds leave school because they know that they have got as much out of the education system as they are likely to get. Far too many of our pupils leave school, having attended it from the age of five to the age of 16, with very little to show for it. It would be crazy for them to continue in a system that has so far provided them with nothing that they or the world outside appear to value.
The purpose of the Bill is to alter that, so that schools provide those children with something that they need and the world respects. To pump hundreds of millions of pounds into a system that is in such a state of chaos, without any clear vision of who will profit from it and to what extent, would be a serious mistake.
I also feel strongly that we are stirring up a major philosophical exercise, which should perhaps have been stirred up during the great debates. I was not on the Standing Committee—I was in no position to be—but I feel that these are fundamental debates about re-entry to the education system. I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil that one of the important questions is how it is possible to get back into the education system. I know that very many people of all ages will benefit most from education when they want it, not when it is handed to them as the next inexorable stage in process.

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at new clauses 24 and 25, which produce precisely that effect.

Mr. Rowe: I must confess that my knowledge of all the complexities of the Bill suffers from my not having been a member of the Committee. However, the business of reentering the education system is very important. I am not at all clear that the provision of maintenance allowances across the board would benefit anyone at this stage.

7 pm

Dr. Thomas: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about re-entry. My short-lived teaching career began with teaching re-entry students in adult education. It was a very valuable experience for me, but perhaps not for the students. It enabled me to understand the importance of students returning to the educational system.
It is clear from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that all hon. Members agree about the variety and unevenness of financial provision in the post-16 sector. I want to stress the positive aspects of the curriculum content of some of the activities of TVEI and YTS training. Although one may disagree with the way in which this is carried out, and where it is carried out, we must accept that we have seen for the first time an introduction of a form of curriculum at 16-plus for a group of young people who were not catered for previously. That is why I want to address my remarks to new clause 18 and develop the ideas that it contains.
New clause 18 refers to the need for
local education authorities to have the duty to undertake functions in relation to strategic planning of post-16 education provision outside schools


in their areas. That is crucial. People outside Government have accused the Government of undermining the role of local education authorities in terms of school provision. In the local co-ordination of the 16 to 19-year-old sector, the LEA is best placed to deal effectively with the coordination of courses.
As we have already heard, much MSC, YTS and TVEI funding is allocated to schools and FE colleges. It is important that those funds should be properly co-ordinated. We often see what I regard as duplication and unnecessary competition. Although I accept that the Government like competition, there is unnecessary competition among managing agents. Various public authorities compete against one another for the provision of courses. That does not seem to make much sense.
The training and educational experience of the post-16 age group should be better co-ordinated. It is important that we break down the distinction between traditional non-vocational education and education related to training. These are skill and knowledge-acquiring experiences. They are useful, however they are described, or however specific or general they may be.
Every technical piece of education requires a conceptual understanding and some kind of theory, even if that is only theory in the practice. Every form of theoretical teaching must have a base—dare I say it—in a material practice of some kind or other. Without lapsing into sociological jargon and therefore entertaining Conservative Members, I want to emphasise that there should be no distinctions between the kind of knowledge that we provide in our schools, and particularly in our post-16 system.
The reorganisation being carried out in so many areas of the tertiary sector provides an opportunity for local education authorities to be involved in planning across the range. New colleges are being created for those aged 16 plus in which the traditional FE pupils, sixth form pupils and students on MSC schemes come together in the same building, or at least within the same provision. The LEA is the lead agency and should have the kind of provision set out in new clause 18. That would provide us with a "national curriculum" at 16-plus. At the moment, that is not included in the Bill.
I explained several times in Committee that the Government were very keen to introduce the enterprise culture and so-called educational standards to pupils in public sector secondary and primary schools. However, we believe that it is equally important that there should be an effective form of curriculum planning for 16 to 19-yearolds. I do not believe that that should be centrally determined; it should be locally controlled.
That would give the post 16-plus sector of education a new impetus. In particular, it would bring the educational system in England and Wales —I dare not speak for Scotland, even from the Plaid Cymru Bench on this issue — into the 20th century. It would provide an age participation at this level and hopefully increase the class and gender participation. That would bring us into line with the reality of what is happening in most Western developed countries and most countries in central and eastern Europe.
My colleague from the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is right. There is a cultural problem. Obviously there is a financial problem

and we have discussed this at length already, and I shall not repeat the argument, which I certainly endorse, about the need for an educational maintenance allowance.
There is also a cultural argument about remaining on at school and then going on to college. We must break that down. The position is so very different in Europe and America. Going to college there is regarded as the norm, while in Britain it is not. That is a historical failure of our educational system. It can be restored only if we plan for it. That is why we must take on the initiatives in MSC schemes, develop them and make them locally based so that they become part of the local education authority system.
I know that the Minister will not accept new clause 18. However, I hope she can say that the Government will insist that local education authorities should be involved in strategic planning in the 16-plus sector.

Mr. Dalyell: I make no complaints about the point that I want to make because I understand the reasons, but there was no Scottish Member on the Committee. However, there is a considerable Scots involvement in various parts of the Bill.
My speech will be much shortened because the points have been made most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I hope that the Minister will reply to what he had to say about the MSC involvement. That experience is repeated in many constituencies. I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney spoke for a great many of us in our constituency roles when he outlined the problems in relation to the MSC.
I want to stick to new clause 2 and the review of continual assessment. That is obviously something that bothers Downing street. I want to refer to two different points made by the Prime Minister by way of her private secretary, Mr. Paul Gray, to Mr. Tom Jeffrey, in the letter which found its way to the desk of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Has there been a ministerial reply to that letter?
The Prime Minister's private secretary states:
The Committee seem to have designed an enormously elaborate and complex system. They suggest it requires setting up two new powerful bodies, the Schools and Examination Council and the National Curriculum Council, and a major new role for the LEAs. Is this necessary?
Downing street asks:
Has the sort of approach advocated in the Report in fact been put into practice with the proposed degree of elaboration in any large group of schools?
That point is very germane to new clause 2. I wonder if one of the leading ladies of the Conservative party, a senior Minister after all, will reply to it.
The letter continues, to outline the Prime Minister's fourth point:
The Prime Minister also notes that, presumably as a result of the complexity of the proposals, the new assessment system could not be introduced in less than five years. Although she recognises the importance of careful preparation and introduction of the new arrangements"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to understand how any of this arises on new clauses 1, 2 or 18.

Mr. Dalyell: New clause 2(2) deals with the role of continual assessment. My points are highly relevant to continual assessment.

Mr. Straw: Quite right.

Mr. Dalyell: The recipient of the letter, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, says, "Quite right."
I shall be very brief. I want to know, on which side of the argument is the Minister of State? Is she on the side of the Secretary of State? I suspect that she is on the Prime Minister's side. If she is, she ought to explain why. I am going to try my luck, and ask her the question about which the Secretary of State seemed a little coy. Why did Mr. Ingham's office authorise the disclosure? As the Minister is so close to Downing street, she will know if there is to be a leak inquiry. Is there to be a leak inquiry? The Minister is like the Secretary of State, in that there is a deafening silence when she is asked whether there is to be a leak inquiry. I have not had much luck.

Mr. Flannery: I shall be brief. I want to take up one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). It seems that he believes that our children are somehow different from young people in Japan, Germany, France, Italy and America, because our young people are clamouring to leave school at 16. When the school leaving age was 14, ordinary working-class children had to go out to work—Conservative Members do not kick out their kids at 16, it is always our children who have to go out to work. The point I wish to make—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has only just come into the Chamber. You should go back to sleep.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am very much awake.

Mr. Flannery: I would never dream of saying that about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You would not have made that comment if you had not been wide awake.
The maintenance allowance in new clauses 1 and 2 is absolutely vital. In other countries there are tremendous incentives to stay at school. When children left school at 14 and did not stay on, there were scholarships. People said that they left school at 14 because the teaching was bad and there was no point in staying on. When the school-leaving age was 15 the same argument was used. That same argument is being used now, when children are leaving school at 16.
The lack of provision deters children from staying on, and we are asking for a maintenance allowance for those between the ages of 16 and 19. Our children are no different from other children. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) put the case splendidly for all of us, because he comes from an area like my constituency, which is a steel area, where large numbers of our young people do not have a chance to stay on. Of course they want to stay on, but they have to get what bit of work there is when they can. That is the reality.
Therefore, we want some inducement for them to stay on at school and have an education. They are no more clever in other countries where they stay on up to the ages of 18 and 19, as they do in Denmark, Sweden and the countries that I have already mentioned. Does the Tory party think that our children are not as good as they are? Of course our children are as good: it is a question of money and incentives.
There is a difference between young people in Britain in areas such as Merthyr and Sheffield, and those in the leafy areas of the south where a large number of young

people stay on at school because people are well-to-do and have the opportunity to keep them there even if there is no allowance. We want an inducement for our children not to leave school. We profoundly believe that, if that money is forthcoming, and if there is a maintenance allowance for 16 to 19-year-olds, we will prove that our children want to stay on and get a better education to equip them for life.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The debate on new clauses 1 and 2 and the amendment to new clause 2 raises a number of issues about education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds. Indeed, the debate has been interesting and valuable for all concerned.
My first point is that provision for 16 to 19-year-olds will always be complex. We do not need to accept that we are currently in crisis, but we have to accept that there are a variety of needs, interests, skills and ambitions among 16 to 19-year-olds which are considerable and wide ranging.
7.15 pm
A corresponding variety of education and training provision is needed to cater for that. Clearly we must try to make it as coherent and comprehensible as we can, but not, I hope, at the risk of reducing the breadth of choices and opportunities available to our young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire South-West (Mr. Madel) made the sensible and interesting point that we do not yet know the outcome of the GCSE, because that new examination introduces a number of new concepts which we hope will lead to a larger number of young people within the school system having an interest in continuing and furthering their education. It may be that they will continue and further their education in schools or colleges; it may be that they will choose to continue their further education on a part-time basis; or that they will consider the possibility of re-entry. We hope that the GCSE will encourage young people so that what they learn up to the age of 16 will give them sufficient grounding to know that they can continue their education later on if they wish to do so.
During the past few years the Government have been working to increase the range of opportunities available to youngsters. We have introduced a number of important new programmes and forms of provision, including the two-year youth training scheme and the technical and vocational education initiative. The TVEI aims to increase technical and vocational relevance across the curriculum for all pupils from 14 onwards. This is particularly important, as it has an impact on technology and science. It is invaluable in introducing the world of work and the relevant skills into schools so that youngsters in school have an insight into the kind of people with whom they may ultimately work and the things that they might do when they leave school.
Our aim is to ensure that suitable education and training programmes are available to all young people aged between 16 and 19 who want them.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall give way in a moment.
It is very important that young people should be properly prepared for adult and working life, and that they should be equipped with the skills that employers are looking for. Opposition Members will recognise that there


is already a legal duty on local education authorities to ensure an adequate level of provision. The Education Act 1944 places a duty on every local education authority to secure the provision of sufficient schools for senior pupils. Clause 99 of the Bill restates the explicit duty of LEAs to secure the provision of adequate further education—including for those 16 to 19-year olds who have already left school.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On the question of training and education provision, will the Minister explain why it is logical to give people on training a grant or payment, but it is not logical to give those in education any payment? Surely that pushes some people into training rather than into education, because of their home circumstances or poverty at home.

Mrs. Rumbold: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the YTS scheme attracts a large number of youngsters and has attracted a higher proportion of youngsters into post-16 work. It offers an allowance to young people because they are receiving education and working and making contributions to the output of their employers. For that reason, they are getting an allowance. Young people who remain in full-time education enjoy the advantage of child benefit going to their parents. Furthermore, 82,000 youngsters are supported by discretionary grants from their local education authority.
An important subject has been raised in this debate. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) blamed the Government for not providing young people with an allowance that would permit them to remain at school, but there has been a failure to motivate young people to remain in education. They have not been told why it would be so much better if they continued with further education or, at a later date, re-entered the education system.

Ms. Armstrong: The Minister is missing the point. In areas of high unemployment there are no jobs on which to graft good skill training schemes. Furthermore, in areas of high unemployment young people who might want to remain in full-time further education, because they recognise that adequate skill training is not provided outside that system, cannot afford to do so because their contribution to the family income is essential.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady says that there are no opportunities for young people to get skill training under the YTS scheme. She also says that they cannot remain in education. There appears to be a dichotomy in her statement. If young people stayed on in education, their families would receive child benefit, and they themselves would benefit from further and higher education.
Provision is already available for any 16-year-old who wants it. Those aged 16 can stay on at school, or go to college, or join a YTS scheme. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) pointed out that not all youth training schemes are good, but many of them are improving and they are much welcomed by employers.
The youth training scheme was introduced for young people who are able to benefit from a mixture of training and work experience. There is a wide range of different types of courses and programmes. However, the Government believe that it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication of provision and to ensure that the provision is well monitored. If it is not well monitored, both students and employers become confused.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central referred to the plethora of qualifications and examinations. That is why we set up the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, whose remit is to bring greater coherence and order to the pattern of vocational courses. We hope that the council's work will ultimately make it easier for all concerned to understand what is available and how the different levels of vocational courses relate to one another. This is an important part of this Government's strategy, and it subsumes new clause 2, which has been tabled by the Opposition.
The Government also accept that it is important that young people should know what opportunities for training are open to them and where they are. It is especially important to acknowledge the fact that the number of people in this age group is declining and that we shall continue to want as many young people as possible to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them for further education and possibly higher education.
For that reason, my Department, together with the Department of Employment and the Welsh Office, in October last year produced a booklet and an accompanying video that explained the main types of courses on offer. Copies were made available for all I 5-year-olds in the country for use as part of a wider careers programme to help them to make the right choices at 16. I think that that programme has been a great success.
A particular issue that is raised by new clause 1 is educational maintenance allowances. The clause would give my right hon. Friend the power to require local education authorities to provide allowances for 16 to 19-year-old students, but, like successive previous Governments, we do not believe that that would be right. The Government do not wish children anywhere in the country to fail to benefit from skill training. It is essential that such training should be offered to as many youngsters as we can persuade to take it. However, until young people in schools fully understand that it will be relevant and beneficial, they will not be persuaded to remain at school or to undertake training or further education.
It is wrong to think that some youngsters stay on at school simply because of the maintenance allowance. To do so would do no more than delay a difficult decision that will ultimately have to be made by them. Young people in full-time education are regarded as dependent on their parents for financial support until their 19th birthday. That is why child benefit is paid for them. Families receiving income support from the Department of Health and Social Security receive an additional payment for those students. The local education authorities also have discretion to pay a maintenance allowance.
The Government share the view that more young people should stay on in full-time education and training beyond the age of 16, but not all young people are suited to such education. For many, the youth training scheme is better suited to their needs. YTS trainees receive an allowance in recognition of the fact that during their work experience they make a useful contribution to production, alongside paid employees.
For those who are suited to education beyond the age of 16, I am not aware of arty evidence that mandatory allowances would have any significant effect on participation rates. However, they would have a significant deadweight cost. The net additional cost of paying an allowance at the first year YTS trainee level to all 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education would be £650


million in England alone. That sum would have to be paid to young people who stayed on in full-time education, anyway. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) what the participation rate would be, because we have not yet made the kind of studies to which he referred.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady will be doing such studies. Will she make the results available?

Mrs. Rumbold: We shall be doing some studies on the YTS participation rates and I can certainly let the hon. Gentleman have those.
The Government believe that a far better way of persuading young people to stay on in education is through measures to improve that education. Our policies are designed to raise school standards and make education in schools and colleges more relevant to adult and working life. That will result in 16-year-olds who are better educated and more ready to take advantage of education beyond 16 and have the ability to benefit from that education.
The 16 to 19-year-old provision is unquestionably complex—it always has been—but it has to be if it is to cater effectively for the wider range of needs of our youngsters. It would be impossible, I submit, for us so to codify, so to straitjacket, the provisions for 16 to 19-yearolds as to persuade all to stay on for compulsory education. That would simply not work in this country. The Government are working to increase the range of options available, reduce unnecessary duplication and make sure that young people know what is on offer.
We do not believe that new clauses 1 and 2 are necessary, or that they would help to improve the range of opportunities available. I therefore hope that they will be withdrawn.

Mr. Fatchett: We have had a very interesting debate. The Minister's response left a great deal to be desired. She said that the problem was one of motivation. She did not offer that motivation in two important respects. First, there needs to be, as the Minister almost acknowledged, a sharper definition of provision of qualification post-16. Secondly, there has to be recognition of the financial considerations.
The Minister simply failed to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), in particular, about the financial requirements of families and the pressure upon families for youngsters to leave school and go into training or employment. If the Minister believes that the child benefit allowance, at £7.50, will resolve that problem, she has very little experience of some of the problems about which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently.
The Minister lacks the urgency that I think is essential on this question of post-16 education. We shall therefore seek to divide the House, not on new clause 1, but on new clause 2, which is much more extensive in its provision, and we hope that we shall carry all hon. Members with us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to withdraw new clause 1?

Mr. Fatchett: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

I6–I9 EDUCATION

`(1) Within 6 months of Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on education and training for 16 to 19 year olds.
(2) Such a report shall deal with financial support to enable 16 to 19 year olds to remain in full time education, the need to integrate education and training provisions for 16 to 19 year olds; and a review of all examinations and forms of continual assessment for 16 to 19 year olds to ensure they are compatible and will enable a young person to build up a range of skills and knowledge for their own sake or for entry into Higher Education or work.'.—[Mr. Fatchett]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 271.

Division No. 224]
[7.32 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eadie, Alexander


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashdown, Paddy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Foulkes, George


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buchan, Norman
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Haynes, Frank


Clay, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clelland, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Holland, Stuart


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tarn
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
John, Brynmor


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M6n)


Dixon, Don
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Doran, Frank
Kirk wood, Archy


Douglas, Dick
Leadbitter, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry






Livingstone, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Livsey, Richard
Richardson, Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Robertson, George


McAllion, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rowlands, Ted


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Salmond, Alex


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


McTaggart, Bob
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meacher, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Straw, Jack


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wall, Pat


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Nellist, Dave
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. Allen Adams and


Randall, Stuart
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Redmond, Martin



NOES


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Amos, Alan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashby, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowis, John
Cope, John





Cormack, Patrick
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Dickens, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Dicks, Terry
Madel, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Major, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Malins, Humfrey


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Dunn, Bob
Maples, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evennett, David
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fallon, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Farr, Sir John
Maude, Hon Francis


Favell, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mellor, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Miller, Hal


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Iain


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miscampbell, Norman


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


French, Douglas
Monro, Sir Hector


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
Morris, M (N'hampton SI


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Goodlad, Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patnick, Irvine


Harris, David
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hawkins, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Holt, Richard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rost, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Knox, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lightbown, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael






Sims, Roger
Trippier, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Steen, Anthony
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Walters, Dennis


Stokes, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Woodcock, Mike


Thorne, Neil
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Tredinnick, David

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

NURSERY EDUCATION

'It shall be the duty of every local education authority to make provision for nursery education and pre-school facilities for all those children under the statutory school age whose parents desire them to receive it, and to ensure that all those children who are admitted to primary school before the statutory school age benefit from appropriate facilities, space, equipment and staffing provision; and section 24 of the 1980 Act is repealed.'.—[Mrs. Clwyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Rising fives—
'Where pupils are admitted to infant or primary schools before the statutory school starting age, they shall be taught in classes staffed at least by a qualified teacher and a qualified nursery nurse if such classes contain more than 12 pupils.'.

New clause 5—Staffing of nursery schools and classes—
'Within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the training and supply of nursery teachers and nursery nurses, and the development of a training and career structure for nursery nurses.'.

New clause 27—Pre-school schemes—
'It shall be the duty of every local education authority to prepare a scheme in accordance with this section.
(2) The scheme shall provide for—

(a) the determination of proposals to enable every eligible child to attend a pre-school group or class approved for the purpose by the authority for a period of not less than one year before attaining the age of five (including in particular, determination after consultation on draft proposals with parents, interested voluntary organisations and other interested persons);
(b) the publication of information and advice to promote the attendance of every eligible child at such a group or class; and
(c) publication of an annual report on the scheme.


(3) A child is an eligible child for the purposes of subsection (2) above if that child has attained the age of three years six months and is not a registered pupil at a school (other than in a nursery class of a school).
(4) A scheme prepared by a local education authority in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section—

(a) shall be reviewed by the authority at intervals of no more than five years; and
(b) may be varied or replaced by a further scheme.

(5) No provision of this section shall be deemed to require or to promote the admission of children to a school (other than to a nursery class of a school).'.

Mrs. Clwyd: It is 20 years, almost to the day, since my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) organised the first-ever lobby of under-fives in this House. We are especially glad that she is here for the debate this evening. However, she must feel disconsolate that so little has changed in that time.
It never ceases to amaze any of us that in nine years of wailing and wringing of hands about the rotten educational standards of our school leavers compared with those of other countries, we hear comparatively little about school beginners. One reason for that is that educationists, politicians and Governments have tended to concentrate on the reform of secondary and tertiary education, despite the growing mass of evidence to support the old Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child for the first seven years and you may do what you like with him afterwards." Indeed, the United States Harvard pre-school project, completed in 1979, after a 14-year study of the development of children from six months to six years, concluded that the magic age was as young as three years. As the Harvard team wrote, to get to the heart of the matter:
It appears that a first-rate educational experience during the first three years of life is required if a person is to develop his or her full potential. While excellent early development does not guarantee lifelong excellent development, poor progress in the early years seems to be remarkably difficult to overcome.
William Fowler, professor of applied psychology at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, looked down the telescope the other way and declared that he could not
find a single individual of high ability who had not experienced this intensive early stimulation.
Britain has a long tradition of nursery education, dating from the pioneering work of Rachel and Margaret Macmillan, but successive Governments have been reluctant to make a major investment in the expansion of nursery schools and classes. The lack of local authority places for the under-fives, together with a strong demand for pre-school education, has created a unique community response in Britain in the form of playgroups. They are the cheaper alternative to local authority nursery schools and have attracted considerable official support, mainly because they reduce the pressure on local and central Government to provide more comprehensive pre-school education. That, in turn, has led to the system of mixed voluntary and maintained sector provision that we have today.
As well as the failure—and it is a massive failure—to meet the needs and wishes of parents, both those who are in paid work and those who are not in paid work, and to provide them with a choice of different ways of sharing child care, the greatest lack is in day care for the children of working women. Of couse, here the Government have a vested interest in keeping working women out of the economy.
The 1967 Plowden report estimated that places were needed for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds. In 1974 a survey by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys revealed that 89 per cent. of mothers of three and four-year-olds, and 65 per cent. of mothers of nought to four-year-olds desired daycare provision. That was considerably more than Plowden had estimated.
Overall, Plowden's recommendations for nursery education were heeded in 1972, when the Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, issued a White Paper in which the Government's aim was declared to be
that within the next 10 years nursery education should become available without charge, within the limits of demand … to those children of three and four whose parents wish them to benefit from it.
That radical change did not take place.

Mr. Timothy Raison: rose—

Mrs. Clwyd: I shall give way in a moment.
The promises of 1972 were easily broken. Instead, the number of part-time places in LEA nursery schools more than doubled between 1975 and 1985. In England some of the places in reception classes that were occupied by under-fives were transferred into nursery class places. Despite this large increase, there were still almost as many under-fives in primary school reception classes as in nursery classes or schools by 1985.

Mr. Raison: Does the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) recall that the Plowden report contained a minority report signed by Professor David Donnison and Dr. Michael Young—both of whom were then members of the Labour party and one of whom subsequently defected, I believe—as well as Lady Plowden and, as it happens, myself? We said that it would be a very good idea to promote the provision of nursery schools by charging fees to those who could afford them. Looking back over this period, and in the light of the fact that there has been very limited expansion, would it not have been better to accept that at the time?

Mrs. Clwyd: It was clear that that view was not shared by the then Secretary of State, now the Prime Minister.
At the same time, the number of places in registered playgroups continued to expand in England and Wales. This expansion in part-time places did nothing at all to address the demands for day care and of working mothers. The apparently laudable increase of 10 per cent. in provision that did take place between 1975 and 1985 has been achieved through part-time places. There has been a very heavy dependence on the playgroup movement, again with an increase in places of 10 per cent.
This has had only a marginal impact on the level of demand for more comprehensive day care, as well as education. Indeed, free nursery education, like so many promises made by this Government, for 70 per cent. of three to four-year-olds, which was pledged in the 1972 DES White Paper, has been completely reneged upon by the Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State.
The growth in the nought to four population between 1980 and 1984 showed that the infant population would increase in the latter half of the 1980s, with the result that fewer under-fives will gain access to local education authority places. At present, day care supervision does not meet demand. In some parts of the country there are no

day nursery places; in others there is no pre-school provision. The picture is of gross underfunding and of enormous and unfair local variations in the level of provision.
In 1945, Beth Wellman published a review of about 50 American studies, the earliest of which was dated 1918. These studies compared the average IQ of children who had attended pre-school centres with that of children who had had no pre-school education. The results showed conclusively that children with pre-school educational experience had an increased IQ score compared with those who had not attended pre-school programmes. Indeed, compared with the North Americans, British educationists have been somewhat lukewarm about the value of preschool education.
Last year, the publication of Osborne and Millbank's study of the effects of early education was the first British study to show conclusively that nursery schools and playgroups gave children an important and lasting educational advantage. It was based on data from the child health and education study of 16,000 children who were born in Britain in one week in April 1970, and a series of tests on those children at the ages of five and 10. The study reveals that eccentric and haphazard arrangements are made for under-fives in Britain.
In answer to the question whether pre-school education could have a beneficial effect on the subsequent development, educational achievements and behaviour of the children concerned, the study was convinced that the simple answer is undoubtedly yes.
Children who attend LEA nursery classes that are tacked on to primary schools are a cause for concern. The study suggests that these classes may not be very much different from primary reception classes, as children attending those classes did not show consistently high test scores, and therefore clearly had a worse deal.
The expansion of nursery education since 1975 has been almost entirely in part-time LEA nursery and reception classes. There is an urgent need to ensure that these children are being properly treated for their particular needs. Hence our new clause 4, which will ensure that these classes are appropriately staffed.
The study to which I have referred went on to conclude that the findings should not be used as a justification for LEAs to sponsor playgroups, as a more economical alternative to maintained schools or classes. Children attending playgroups, as we all know, generally come from relatively secure and middle-class homes, whereas those attending LEA-maintained institutions tend to come from relatively underprivileged homes. This factor may explain why playgroup children do well, but it also demonstrates the benefits of the LEA nursery sector.
Another equally cogent, but less obvious, argument for maintaining and expanding LEA nursery provision is the number of children who reach the age of five without any organised form of pre-school education. The main conclusion of the study was the contrast between children who had and children who had not been exposed to preschool education. Adequate pre-school provision can improve the quality of life of young children and their families, as well as aiding the child's development and increasing his or her educational potential.
Investment in pre-school provision and the improved quality of life that it bestows clearly pays good dividends in future, particularly in preparing for the kind of test that


the Secretary of State has in mind. Despite this factor, preschool services remain haphazard. They are uncoordinated and all too often in short supply. According to the latest figures from the under-fives unit and the National Children's Bureau, only 22 per cent. of three and four-year-olds receive nursery education in England, compared with 28 per cent. in Scotland and 34 per cent. in Wales. I shall not make the very obvious comment about those figures.
Clearly there is an urgent need for co-ordinated and integrated expansion of pre-school provision. New clause 5 asks that the Secretary of State
shall make a report to Parliament on the training and supply of nursery teachers and nursery nurses".
Within the education sector there is no career structure for nursery nurses to progress beyond the position of nursery nurse, except for starting again with teacher training, and that is plainly wrong.
With integration of special needs children into the mainstream schools under the Education Act 1981, this is ridiculous. Some progressive local authorities are attempting to move forward towards the integration of services with joint education and social services funding. In inner London—and in Leeds—nursery liaison posts, to link local playgroups and mother and toddler groups with local schools, are being set up, but the programmes are being cut under the Secretary of State's savaging of ILEA's budget.
8 pm
The demand for pre-school provision and day care has never been higher. The educational benefits of pre-school experience have never been better demonstrated. Yet what does the Bill say about pre-school provision? At the end of chapter I, it says:
Nothing in this Chapter shall apply in relation to a nursery school or a nursery class in a primary school.
There is a desperate need for increased provision for the under-fives and their families. A start to addressing the need would be the repeal of section 24 of the Education Act 1980 and the introduction of a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery education and pre-school facilities, for which we call in new clause 3. There is a need to ensure that pre-school provision is adequately resourced and an immediate need to ensure that children in primary school reception classes get adequate educational experience, as expressed in new clause 4.
There is also a need for services for the under-fives to be brought together and not fragmented, as they are too often at present, and for a career structure for nursery nurses as expressed in new clause 5.
Given that there is an abundance of evidence to show conclusively that nursery schools and playgroups give children an important and lasting educational advantage, the Government's refusal to provide the necessary resources means that thousands of young children will be crippled educationally by callous disregard for their needs.

Mr. Ashdown: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, and I agree with all of it. The omission of provision for nursery and pre-school education marks the Bill out not as a great reform Bill looking to the future, but as a measure which looks back to the rigidities and failures of the past. If we had a great reform Bill, it would tackle such things as

nursery education and participation post-16. The absence of nursery education provision is a major omission, just as was the absence of provision for special needs until it was taken up effectively in Committee by members of the Opposition parties.
I go further and agree with the hon. Lady that there is probably no area of education in which we could make an investment which would provide a surer, quicker or larger return than pre-school and nursery education. As she rightly said, the studies have pointed clearly to the fact that if we were to invest small amounts in such provision we would get a much greater return in a very short time in faster and more able learning and particularly in a reduction in the number of children whom we classify as having special needs. If the Government are serious about tackling special needs—we heard brave and important speeches from all Ministers; who can doubt their sincerity?— surely they must take into account the evidence, which is now incontrovertible.
I hate to introduce another note of dissent between myself and Her Majesty's Official Opposition, but, although I can subscribe to the sentiments of what they say and agree completely with the arguments which they use to support their case, I must tell them that I shall go very unhappily indeed into the Lobby to vote for what I regard as three clauses as badly and sloppily drafted as one could imagine. [Interruption.] That is true; I shall explain why in a moment.
It is a great shame that the clause on which we will vote is not new clause 27. It sets out specifically and in detail how nursery education might be delivered. It lays down a requirement for a scheme to be provided by a local education authority and says how the determination of the proposals will be made. It defines what would be regarded as a child in need. It lays down a requirement for a year's pre-school education before a child attains the age of five. It sets out mechanisms for providing information and advice to parents, for changing the scheme of a local education authority and for reporting back.
Instead of that new clause, we are considering three new clauses which seem to make no sense. Well, that is not true; new clause 5 uses the classic Labour party ploy of calling for a report. I have to assume that that is to discover whether new clauses 3 and 4 will work. I am not surprised, because when we read the new clauses we find something remarkable.
New clause 3 requires
every local education authority to make provision for nursery education and pre-school facilities for all those children under the statutory school age whose parents desire them to receive it".
One assumes that that could apply from the date of birth. It does not refer to day care but to nursery education and pre-school facilities for all children. From the day a child leaves the mother's womb in hospital, the parents may say, "Provide us now under the Labour measure with preschool and nursery education for our child."

Mr. Dunn: Following labour.

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, indeed, following labour they could do that.
I cannot imagine a more ludicrous or more expensive clause. Clearly it has not been thought through.

Mrs. Clwyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley shakes her head, but the new clause says that the local


education authority should make provision for all children under the statutory school age. There is no definition or limit.
The clause also refers to the provision of
appropriate facilities, space, equipment and staffing provision".
There is no definition of those. It would give lawyers a field day. I cannot imagine a more crazy clause. I cannot believe that the Labour party is serious in putting it forward.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We put down what parents desire. If the hon. Gentleman had been going around schools he would have come across a substantial number of community schools where successful mother and toddler groups are run. We put into the new clauses what parents desire; therefore, we would have thought that the Liberal Democrats would have gone along with us in accepting that parents were good judges of what was appropriate for their children.

Mr. Ashdown: I believe that parents will be good judges, but in many cases parents will abuse the facilities by using them for child-minding and day care. I do not mind that, but I object to their provision through the local education authority and to them being called nursery education and pre-school facilities. I would not object to a body being set up to direct attention to what is needed, but it is ludicrous to suggest that a child at one day old requires nursery education and pre-school facilities.

Mr. Flannery: Are there not Liberal councils which make no provision? What about the Isle of Wight?

Mr. Ashdown: No. It has long been part of Labour party propaganda that the Isle of Wight makes no such provision. That is monstrous. The Isle of Wight helps to assist and fund non-LEA organised bodies. [Interruption.] That is reasonable. There is a statutory requirement for provision, but I believe strongly that it is up to the LEA to decide whether it should be delivered through the LEA on an organised LEA basis or whether in rural areas some LEAs might wish to pump prime and assist.

Mr. Flannery: Is there any free nursery provision?

Mr. Ashdown: Some is free and some is not.

Mr. Flannery: Is any of it free?

Mr. Ashdown: Of course it is. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
If new clause 3 is odd, new clause 4 is positively destructive. I draw the attention of the House to its wording. It says that in every case where pupils are admitted to an infant or primary school class
before the statutory school starting age
there shall be
a qualified teacher and a qualified nursery nurse".
That will immediately put a block on provision for the education of rising-fives in many areas of Britain, and I will tell the hon. Member for Cynon Valley why : "before the statutory school age" means anything up to the term following a child's fifth birthday. In 210 primary schools in Somerset alone, the rising-fives — caught by the definition in new clause 4—are taught as part of a class. If there was a requirement to have a qualified nursery nurse and a qualified nursery teacher in every class in which there was one rising-five, such provision would stop the day after tomorrow. The first result of the new clause would be a complete uproar from parents whose rising-fives could no longer take part in that provision.
I have taken the trouble to discover what the proposal would cost in Somerset. If it were put into operation tomorrow, it would cost a minimum of £500,000. The Labour party could have suggested that, where 10 per cent. of children in a given class were aged less than four and a half, such provision was needed. A cut-off point could have been included. Then I would have understood the clause. But the suggestion that if there is one child aged four years 11 months in a primary school class there must be a qualified nursery nurse and a qualified nursery teacher will bring to an end provision for the rising-fives in Britain the day after tomorrow. I cannot believe that that is the Labour party's intention.

Ms. Armstrong: May I refer to new clause 27? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no child should have provision until he or she is aged three years six months? Is that what the new clause means?

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, indeed. Three years six months is the age at which we think it best that provision should first be made for a child's education. One might argue the case for such provision at the age of three, but at least we give a definition. The Labour new clauses contain no such definition.
I shall vote in favour of the new clauses, because that is the only way in which we can express our concern for nursery education. That is the position in which the Social and Liberal Democrats find themselves time and again; the agenda is established between the Government and the official Opposition and one has either to choose between two inadequate solutions or to abstain. I shall not abstain on this occasion, although I have never seen two new clause as unworkable, impracticable, ludicrous and damaging to the cause of nursery education as those standing in the name of the Labour party.

Mr. Raison: As the House may know, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts will shortly embark on a study of the under-fives. As Chairman of that Committee, I do not propose to come to the House in a very assertive mood this evening. Nevertheless, I have one or two comments to make and questions to ask about this topic, and it is certainly a good thing that it has been raised on Report, because it is important.
The new clause is a bit odd, for reasons that have been explained already, and I should like to have it made clear whether the duty of the local authority to make provision really means that it must provide the facilities, or simply that it has a duty to ensure that someone is providing a pre-school education in its area.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Our intention is that the local authority should facilitate provision. Whether it provides the education itself or uses other agencies is a matter for it. We should have a menu of provision from which parents can choose for their children. Part of that will come from the voluntary sector, and part from the local authority.

Mr. Raison: Whether that is compatible with the wording of the new clause, I do not know. Nevertheless, that is the most sensible approach.
One of the lessons that has been learnt — certainly this impressed itself on Lady Plowden when she was considering the matter—is the great value of the work that can be done by playgroups. I know that playgroups are often seen as something of a middle-class


phenomenom, and they have been described as such already in the debate. I accept that there is some truth in that, although I do not think that they need be a middle-class phenomenom. As has been stressed repeatedly, the great merit of playgroups has been the way in which they have succeeded in involving parents.
Whatever we think about the statutory education services, we must admit that very few schools can claim a triumphant success in involving parents. Indeed, one of the main problems of the state education system is the difficulty that it is having in getting parents sufficiently involved. Therefore, I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that he is thinking along those lines. The playgroup, if it is run well, has a special value. That is not to say that the well-run nursery school is not also very important.
8.15 pm
The hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) talked about a return on investment and the research that has been taking place recently apparently showing the sustained benefits to be derived from pre-school education. I confess that, although I hope to be considering that research shortly, I have not followed it recently. A few years back, what seemed to be emerging was the suggestion that there was a short-term gain from nursery education — perhaps lasting two or three years—but there was no evidence of a long-term gain. If the evidence shows us something different today, we must consider it.
It is also worth making the point that one should not consider nursery education simply in terms of long-term gain or investment. The years between the ages of three and five are just as important as any other years in the life of a human being, and there is much to be said for spending them as well and as beneficially as one can. When pre-school education is conducted well, it can enrich that period, and that makes it attractive and valuable. That is an intrinsic merit of pre-school education.
Having said all that, I think that the official Opposition and, indeed, the Liberal party, or whatever it is called now, must try to face the questions of cost and economics. It is no good thinking that one can propose a new clause providing pre-school education for everybody in whatever form they want—

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just offloaded about £4 billion on to people who do not need the money. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he could equally well have used it to provide nursery school places?

Mr. Raison: The money has already been allocated to a great many causes by the Opposition. I doubt whether it would stretch to cover every cause.
We need to be realistic and recognise that no Government will simply wake up one day and announce that there are unlimited funds for pre-school education. We know the record of previous Labour Administrations only too well — they never got within miles of such provision—and it serves no purpose to come forward with proposals such as this. It is a question of priorities, of which there are many in education.
As I said, I am very sympathetic to pre-school provision, but there are other priorities. For example, the

hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would tell us of the important needs of science in the community, and he is right in saying that science is an important discipline that is clamouring for more money. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will say that more money is needed for many of the activities dealt with in the education budget.
That takes me back to the point that I made when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. It is a great pity that the Plowden minority recommendation, with its remarkable all-party support, was not taken rather more seriously. It would not have applied to those who could not have afforded it, and it would have brought more money into the pre-school sector at a time when it was badly needed and would have been very valuable. The Opposition cannot propose a new clause such as this without giving some estimate of the possible cost of its implementation. It is irresponsible not to take the trouble to do that when one is trying to persuade the House to support such a proposal.

Mr. Ashdown: We have asked consistently whether the Government will provide the cost of establishing the national curriculum and whether they will say how many teachers will be required. They have not managed to do that. If they cannot do that with their resources, how on earth does the hon. Gentleman expect the Opposition to do it?

Mr. Raison: The Government are often better placed than the Opposition to give us that sort of detail, but it is not beyond the hounds of possibility for an Opposition party to come up with some idea—not perhaps a precise proposal — of the scale of resources which, by implication, they would be adding to the sector if they were ever to find themselves in power.

Mrs. Clwyd: We have estimated that an increase of 10 per cent. would cost about £60 million.

Mr. Raison: I assume that that is an increase of 10 per cent. in nursery provision. Surely the impact of the new clause would be more than a 10 per cent. increase in nursery provision if it is to be provided for everybody. It seems quite evident that 10 per cent. is an underestimation. As I was saying, one must have a clear idea of what the cost would be before one could seriously contemplate supporting it.
One other point is worth making in this discussion. If I understood her correctly, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke with pride about the provision in Wales and said that it was higher than average. Other hon. Members from time to time say that Labour authorities are doing more than Conservative authorities in providing nursery schools. I put it to them that there is an extremely simple explanation, and it is based on the rate support grant. In my view, absolutely rightly, rate support grant is directed towards areas where needs are greatest and where resources are most scarce.
One of the assumptions that has always lain behind the judgment about where needs are greatest is that where there are greater social needs there is a good case for providing additional nursery schools. That was the view of the Plowden committee, and I support it. Therefore, rate support grant is tipped generously towards areas of the country with higher social deprivation.
A special factor is that Wales gets a particularly good deal out of the rate support grant. A little gratitude might


have been expressed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. It is well known that Wales has always had an especially favourable rate support grant. It received an 18 per cent. surplus on top of what the poor English received. Opposition Members must realise that if they say that Labour authorities are doing well in providing nursery schools, it is essentially because the rate support grant treats them generously.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee, and he has probably heard me say this on that Committee. There are now 27,000 schools using the assisted places scheme, and another 126 are coming in. One school alone, a private school in Newcastle-under-Lyme, has 459 pupils out of 1,200 paid for out of public funds. Instead of building up private education, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that that money could be far better used for children who need nursery education?

Mr. Raison: No, I do not. What I said earlier is true. Many different priorities are being advanced in education. People have to make up their minds on which priorities they think are important. Simply to pick on whatever bit of the education system one does not like and say that that should be scrapped and the money put into nursery education does not meet the point.
I do not want to go on, but the essential point is that I would welcome an expansion of pre-school education. However, the way in which it is proposed by the Opposition cannot be accepted as sensible.

Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on remembering the lobby of the under-fives that took place in 1968. One of the only good thing that the Daily Express has done for me in my political life was to produce a brilliant cartoon of that event. A copy of it is in my house as a reminder of how slow progress has been since 1968.
In my naivety and youthfulness 20 years ago I really believed that if hon. Members on both sides of the House, who see so little of their under-fives because of the lifestyle of this place, actually saw under-fives en masse and realised what their wives had to put up with every day of the week, they might be persuaded that there was an urgency in recognising the needs of the parents of those children and of the under-fives themselves. Unhappily, despite the lobby and all that went with it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley pointed out, there has been little progress.
However, having made that point, I am bound to say that the quality of what is provided today is much better than it was 20 years ago. We have all learnt a great deal about the needs of the under-fives since then. Unfortunately, the amount of provision is not better.
What we were demanding in 1968 and what those of us who have been associated with campaigns for the under-fives asked for was that it should be a statutory obligation for local authorities to make provision for all children from the age of three. We wanted to end the administrative confusion that surrounds facilities for the under-fives and would ensure that primary schools that took in pre-school children were properly equipped to do so, and were not simply putting under-fives into classes of 30 or more children with no assistance and with none of the play

facilities or the equipment for development that we know those children need. They were our demands then and they are still the demands we are making today.
Looking at the EEC table of provisions, one can see that we rank very low in the amount of provision we make for nursery education and for many other facilities for the under-fives.
I do not want to go over ground that has been covered about the variations in what other local authorities provide. However, I want to comment on something mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I agreed with much of what he said. However, we have moved on a little from the Plowden report. The mistake that he and many other Conservative Members make is to assume that the provision of nursery education in particular should be geared to children who come from deprived areas. Nothing can be less stimulating for a young child than to have a crowd of deprived children all put together. That does not stimulate children. They are stimulated by mixing social classes and social groups and by making similar provision for all of them.

Mr. Raison: Surely charging fees would be a good way of ensuring that. Obviously those paying fees would be the better-off ones and the poorer children would not have to pay fees. They could then be mixed happily together, which is what the hon. Lady advocates.

Miss Lestor: The mistake that the hon. Gentleman makes is that, if one goes to a nursery school, one does not pay anything. However, if one is availing oneself of some of the other provisions made such as day nurseries, playgroups or whatever, one has to pay. Many of those forced to pay are people who cannot afford to do so. In a sense, we have things the wrong way round. I believe that the facility should be free and available for all and it should be a mixed facility.
This is where I quarrel with the spokesman from the Liberal party, or whatever it is called now. We have talked about pre-school facilities. This is a Bill about education, not social services. Pre-school facilities include a large number of facilities which, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury said, were commented upon in the Plowden report. It includes playgroups and all sorts of other things.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Miss Lestor: I will not give way at the moment.
I recently spent a happy day in a nursery centre in my constituency in Winton, in Eccles. It is a nursery centre funded by social services and the Department of Education and Science. I still list in "Who's Who" that one of my occupations and amusements is playing with children. There is nothing more relaxing than playing with children.
Centres which include day care and education under one umbrella and which offer a flexible day from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening catering for the needs of a variety of children from different social backgrounds offer the way forward. There are all sorts of other facilities such as the voluntary sector, the private sector and child minders, which I believe we have to look at again in more detail, but that is not the subject of this. Bill. We need to co-ordinate our services.
We have gross housing problems in this country for a large number of our children. Many children lack any form of play space. Many children are in high-rise flats or


in accommodation provided for the homeless. Last year, child abuse emerged as a significant problem in child care. In the 1960s, we talked about the battered baby syndrome. Many people, including some who were in the House at that time, did not believe that it existed. "Not in our country," they said. Then we talked about non-accidental injury, which is what the battered baby syndrome became. Now we know to our cost that child abuse of various kinds is widespread in this country.
I have always believed that one of the safeguards for parents under stress and one of the ways by which to detect when young children are being mistreated is to put them in regular daily contact with trained expert people from outside the family who can monitor their progress. Many of the tragedies over the past years could have been avoided if people who had been trained to spot child abuse had been able to look after our young children.
8.30 pm
Deprived children suffer from delayed development, expression and so on. But I do not want any hon. Member to believe that middle-class children cannot be deprived in many other ways. I have met them and their over-anxious parents, who have told me—it seems only yesterday that I was doing this work—that their children do not need to play because they want to read; or that their children do not like percussion because they like Beethoven. They were children of two or three years of age, living in homes in which one would have assumed there was no need for pre-school education, because they fitted into a stereotype of what many people believe we should aim at for our children. So it is not only children who are in need for whom pre-school education is important.
In circumstances in which there is deprivation and in which parents suffer tremendous stress because of tensions between them, poor diet, poor cooking facilities and— sometimes — homelessness, pre-school education is essential.
I mentioned language development and the social acclimatisation of all our children. Education is basically about curiosity. Education is about harnessing a child's curiosity and offering it the stimulation and facilities to express that curiosity and learn from it. The child is at its most curious roughly between the ages of two and five. If we miss out on those years and do not provide the stimulation and facilities to use that curiosity and translate it into the correct attitude to learning, we can never retrieve them. That is the tragedy of the past 20 years.

Mr. Dunn: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). This is the first time that we have met across the Dispatch Box in this way. I congratulate her on her speech and wish her a belated happy birthday for yesterday—

Mr. Fatchett: Sing "Happy Birthday" to her.

Mr. Dunn: The tune is well worth playing on many occasions, but I do not like it.
This has been an interesting debate and I fully recognise the contribution made to it by hon. Members on all sides. Opposition Members rarely paid tribute to voluntary sector activity in pre-school education. They did not welcome the growth of playgroup provision in this country

in that sector, which complements and supports that provided by local education authorities and other local agencies.
I enjoyed the frisson that passed between the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the Opposition during his destructive analysis of Labour's new clauses. I often wonder what might happen if a time came when the interests of their respective parties had to coalesce, as in the past. Would this be remembered or forgotten in the sweet joy of spring?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made a telling speech, which I welcomed. He paid tribute to the work of the voluntary sector—

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend referred to the importance of financial resources and of the cost. We have heard a great deal tonight about the need for more public expenditure on this or that aspect of educational provision, but rarely have we heard anything about how the money is to be found. Something was said about the Chancellor finding more money from other sources, but we did not hear about the constant advice given to local authorities—that if they wish to spend more money on pre-school provision they can do so by making savings in other areas, such as school caretaking, cleaning and the vexed area of administration.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), whom I welcome back after her translation from Slough, made an important speech in which she mapped out the developments that have taken place—or not, in her view —since her time at the Department of Education and Science 20 years ago. I agree with her that the quality of provision is undoubtedly much better today than in 1968, and I shall return to the point about quantity later.
The effect of new clause 3 will be to repeal section 24 of the Education Act 1980, under which local education authorities have a power, but not a duty, to provide nursery schools in classes and education for children below compulsory school age. The hon. Member for Yeovil was right : the new clause would place, instead, a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery education and pre-school facilities for all children below compulsory school age whose parents desired that. Earlier in the debate there was an exchange about the numbers who might present themselves at the doors of institutions provided by local authorities and demand access on the basis of this clause.
Opposition Members spoke of the 1972 White Paper entitled "Framework for Expansion". It endorsed a number of the points made tonight, and set a target for the expansion of nursery education over the decade that followed the White Paper. I must remind the House that Labour Governments were in power between 1964 and 1970, and again between 1974 and 1979. At that time there was no material impact on the trend of numbers—

Mrs. Clwyd: There was a massive impact.

Mr. Dunn: It is amazing how Opposition Members will not let me make my point. They must concede that the objectives were abandoned in practice, if not formally, during the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979. I seek honesty and candour from Opposition Members about this point. If they agreed that I was right about it, our debate would be the better for it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman's figures are rubbish.

Mr. Dunn: I have quoted no figures, so how can they be rubbish? I am, however, about to do so.
The Government recognise the benefits of school and other collective experience for children under the age of five. Our view is clear : it would be wholly misconceived to impose a general duty of this sort on local educational authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, publicly funded education for the under-fives, important and desirable though it is, must compete with other educational needs and sectors for the finite resources that are available.
Government policy since 1980 has been and remains, first, to preserve the discretionary basis on which education for the under-fives is provided by local authorities; secondly, to maintain level funding of this sector in real terms; and thirdly, to encourage local flexibility and diversity and maximum consumer choice.

Mr. Straw: Where are the figures?

Mr. Dunn: The Opposition are electrified by my speech and cannot wait to be given my points. Earlier, we were asked: what about Dundee? We heard no answers on that. It is quite a different matter when the question is asked of the Opposition.

Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dunn: Sit down. I am coming to the matter of provision, if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will wait one moment.
The success of our policies can be measured in a number of ways. The Opposition will attach most importance to the figures for publicly funded educational provision. Since 1979, the proportion of four-year-olds in primary or nursery classes has risen from about 55 per cent. to about 74 per cent. If rising-fives were counted in, the proportion would be almost 90 per cent.
In addition — these are the figures for which the Opposition are waiting; they cannot wait to write them down and rush back to their constituencies to spread the good news—an estimated 750,000 children, equivalent to 60 per cent. of three and four-year-olds, now go to playgroups and others attend local authority or privately provided day nurseries or independent nursery schools. This diversity and choice are some of the strengths of our current arrangements. They would clearly be undermined if a duty were placed on local education authorities.
I have paid tribute to the work of the playgroup movement. I was delighted that my Department was able to double the grant made to the Pre-School Playgroups Association in the coming financial year, which at £150,000 will be double that for 1986–87. I pay tribute to the voluntary sector and to the work that takes place, but we must not accept these new clauses. They are an attack on the discretion of local education authorities.
The Opposition chose to chide us in Committee on how we were taking powers from local authorities but when we propose to leave local authorities with the discretionary power, the Opposition want to take that power away—[Interruption.]—from local authorities. The case speaks for itself.
Mrs. Clwyd: Despite the Minister's kind greetings for my birthday yesterday, I am sorry that he did not take this subject as seriously as I had hoped. Labour Members

know that there is gross under-funding and enormous and unjustified local variations in nursery and child care provision for the under-fives, and we believe that something should be done about it.
It is clear that some authorities—mainly Labour—have taken their responsibilities seriously, even though they have been severely restrained by the Government in funding cuts. We all know that central Government have cut education funding and that local authorities have made up the shortfall and looked after education. Others —mainly Tory authorities—do not care. In some areas there are no day nursery places, and in others there is no pre-school education. The general picture is of neglect and insensitivity to the needs of the young. That is why it is incredible that the Liberal party should indulge in petty carping over the wording of the new clauses instead of supporting and welcoming the expansion of pre-school education.
We pay tribute, as we have always done, to the voluntary sector. Unlike the Government, we believe that the primary responsibility for funding and developing preschool education lies with the Government. The money is there, and again it is a matter of priorities. The demand for pre-school provision and day care has never been higher. The educational benefits of pre-school experience have never been better demonstrated, but the Government do not want to know.
Far too many children start school without a reasonable command of language, without having had their imaginations stretched or their physical skills extended. Learning to socialise with other children at this formative age can be of enormous benefit. Depriving children of these benefits because of inadequate provision and high private charges can be an unnecessary handicap to child's development. Investment in the future of the young and the very young is at the core of our policies. It is clear that many authorities, especially Labour authorities, have taken their responsibilities seriously. We care, and these new clauses are part of our fight to ensure a better future for all our children. I ask my hon. Friends to support new clause 3.

It being fifteen minutes to Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant the Orders 1 and 17 February] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 261.

Division No. 225]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Tony


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Margaret
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bell, Stuart
Cartwright, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Clelland, David






Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Cousins, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Cox, Tom
Macdonald, Calum A.


Crowther, Stan
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tarn
McTaggart, Bob


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fearn, Ronald
Mullin, Chris


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Murphy, Paul


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Nellist, Dave


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Fraser, John
Pendry, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Galbraith, Sam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galloway, George
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Randall, Stuart


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Redmond, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gordon, Mildred
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rogers, Allan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rooker, Jeff


Grocott, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Haynes, Frank
Ruddock, Joan


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Salmond, Alex


Heffer, Eric S.
Sedgemore, Brian


Henderson, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hinchliffe, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Holland, Stuart
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hoyle, Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Illsley, Eric
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Janner, Greville
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


John, Brynmor
Turner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn Deeside)
Vaz, Keith


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Wall, Pat


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles
Walley, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leadbitter, Ted
Wareing, Robert N.


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)





Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Adam Ingram and


Winnick, David
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Allason, Rupert
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Amos, Alan
Favell, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hawkins, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holt, Richard


Brazier, Julian
Howard, Michael


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hunter, Andrew


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Irvine, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Janman, Tim


Butcher, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butler, Chris
Kilfedder, James


Butterfill, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cash, William
Knowles, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Knox, David


Chapman, Sydney
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Chope, Christopher
Lang, Ian


Churchill, Mr
Latham, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Colvin, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Couchman, James
Lilley, Peter


Cran, James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Devlin, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dicks, Terry
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Dover, Den
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)






Madel, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Malins, Humfrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mans, Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maples, John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sims, Roger


Maude, Hon Francis
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Hal
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Sir Hector
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Walters, Dennis


Renton, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Woodcock, Mike


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Tom



Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. David Lightbown and


Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES FUNDING

'There shall be a Scottish sub-committee of the University Funding Council appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland which shall have the duty of advising the University Funding Council on the discharge of its remit under section 110 of this Act as it applies to Scotland and in formulating the said advice the sub-committee shall have regard to the distinct traditions and academic structure of the Scottish universities, the need to co-operate with other institutions of tertiary education and the requirements of secondary education in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Norman Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following : New clause 39
—Scottish Universities Funding Council—
`—(1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Scottish Universities Funding Council. to he funded by a grant made by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Council shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State, of whom one shall be so appointed as chairman.
(3) Not less than six and not more than nine of the members shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State—

(a) to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education; and
(b) to be currently engaged in the provision of higher education;

and in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters.
(4) The Council shall be responsible, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, for administering funds made available to the Council by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section.
(5) Those activities are—

(a) the provision of education and the undertaking of research by universities; and
(b) the provision of facilities and the carrying on of other activities by universities in connection with education and research.

(6) The Council shall have power to make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, to the governing body of any university in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section.
(7) The Council shall also have power—

(a) to keep under review activities eligible for funding under this section; and
(b) to undertake such other activities as the Council consider it necessary or expedient to undertake for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of their functions under the preceeding provisions of this section.


(8) The governing body of any university shall give the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the exercise of any of their functions under this section.
(9) In this section "governing body" means, in relation to a university, the executive governing body which has responsibility for the management and administration of its revenue and property and the conduct of its affairs, and "university" means a university in Scotland.'.
Amendment No. 40, in clause 110, page 106, line 23, at end insert
`and "university" means a university in England and Wales'. Amendment No. 41, in clause 112, page 107, line 40, leave out 'either of'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 107, line 43, at end insert—
`(aa) in the case of functions conferred or imposed on the Scottish Universities Funding Council, as functions under section (Scottish Universities Funding Council) of this Act;'.
Amendment No. 43, in page 108, line 1, leave out 'either of'.
Amendment No. 44, in page 108, line 14, leave out 'neither of'.
Amendment No. 45, in page 108, line 14, after 'shall', insert 'not'.
Amendment No. 46, in page 108, line 16, leave out 'either' and insert 'a'.
Amendment No. 47, in page 108, line 20, leave out 'either of'.
Amendment No. 48, in page 108, line 24, after 'Universities Funding Council', insert 'Scottish Universities Funding Council'.
Amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 176, line 40, at end insert
'the Scottish Universities Funding Council'.
Amendment No. 51, in page 178, line 10, at end insert
'any member of the Scottish Universities Funding Council in receipt of remuneration'.
Amendment No. 52, in page 178, line 28, at end insert
'the Scottish Universities Funding Council'.
Amendment No. 49, in clause 186, page 161, line 16, leave out '110'.

Mr. Hogg: It is always deemed appropriate for the Scots to give advice on education to the Department of Education and Science. I would not make that point myself, because I realise that tonight we are discussing the Education Reform Bill which has massive implications for English and Welsh education, were it not for the fact that at the same time the Department of Education and Science has responsibility for universities, and that includes the universities in Scotland.
The Bill contains no provision for a Scottish subcommittee of the proposed Universities Funding Council, yet the White Paper, "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" presented to the House in April 1987 promised just that.
On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Scotland declared that the proposed Universities Funding Council should have a Scottish committee. He said that it would play an important part in planning higher education in Scotland and advise the UFC on the implications of the Scottish education system for the needs of the Scottish universities. He envisaged it taking an overview of the needs of the Scottish university sector and providing a new focus for looking at Scottish needs.
The new clause corrects the oversight which led to the omission of that provision from the Bill. It establishes within the Bill the requirement for such a committee, which will advise the UFC on its remit as far as it deals with Scotland, having special regard to the distinct traditions and academic structure of Scottish universities.
Traditionally, Scottish universities take a broad approach. Students enter at 17 a faculty where they can study a variety of subjects. Generally, those are four-year courses which contrast with the situation in England where courses take three years and are more specialised.
The new clause emphasises the need to heed the requirement of secondary education in Scotland. Again, I should mention the broad nature of teaching in schools. Pupils take five or six highers over one year for entry to Scottish universities. Those universities are geared, especially in the first year, to deal with Scottish pupils. It is a flexible system, and Scottish pupils do not tend to go to English universities.

Mr. Bill Walker: That is not true.

9 pm

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he says that.
Because of the distinctive nature of Scottish education, the report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory

Council on the "Future strategy of higher education in Scotland" recommended the establishment of an overarching body
responsible for academic planning and the co-ordination of provision across the university and non-university sectors in Scotland.
The Government have ignored STEAC's report in that respect.
However, the Croham report, in its review of the University Grants Committee, was asked by the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider STEAC's recommendations and to review whether a devolved Scottish funding body would have adequate access to a United Kingdom-based peer review system. Croham had no doubt that an adequate peer review system would operate and recommended that at the very least the University Grants Committee should have a Scottish committee
on the assumption that a separate Scottish planning and funding body is not established".
It was that absolute minimum solution that the Scottish Secretary of State accepted one year ago, ignoring the wider advice of STEAC and the full implications of Crohnam. Yet we find that even that minimum solution is not to have legislative standing. That does not inspire us with confidence. How permanent will it be? What is its remit? Does it have any teeth? All those questions and more remain unanswered without legislation to make the position explicit. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
More than ever there is a need for a Scottish committee with real power and a real understanding of the unique nature of the Scottish education system. The UGC has often been charged with a lack of understanding of the Scottish university scene with allocating individual funding and few, in the light of recent developments, could dispute such a view.
The universities of Aberdeen and Dundee are to shed at least 330 academic posts. Dundee is to lose its modern languages department to Exeter and Lancaster, and its geology department is to be lost to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Those two universities, together with Stirling, are fighting for their lives, while the long-term future of the rest of the eight is far from certain. [Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what the Under-Secretary is saying; perhaps he will intervene later.
Such cuts penalise the Scottish universities. Inadequate funding leads to the loss of highly regarded staff, and, increasingly, to the loss of whole departments. It ignores the need of Scottish universities to provide a broad framework for their students. The loss of departments undermines that, and moves universities away from the multi-discipline approach that they have always enjoyed. It also ignores the extent to which Scottish universities are an essential part of the towns to which they belong. Their loss is their towns' loss, to a much greater extent than in England, where many universities are more campus-based. That was certainly my experience when I lived in Aberdeen, where there was a distinct "town and gown" relationship, and it is the case in more than one Scottish university.
It is little wonder that senior members of the Scottish universities are calling for separate funding. The new rector of Aberdeen university—a very particular post in the Scottish universities—is Mr. Willis Pickhard, a distinguished educationist and editor of The Times


Educational Supplement in Scotland. A couple of weeks ago, he described Scottish university education as working in
a straitjacket cut to English specifications".
That sentiment has been echoed by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who I see in his place this evening. At a conference in Dundee of the Association of University Teachers—perhaps he will recall the occasion, and I hope that I quote him correctly—the right hon. Gentleman said:
I have become increasingly persuaded in recent months that Scottish considerations have been overlooked by the UGC".
For that reason, a Scottish Committee of the UFC is essential. But it must be said that this is just the beginning : more and more of us in Scotland believe that a devolved Scottish assembly will eventually plan for the whole of Scottish education.

Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that there are a number of important clauses to come in this hatch, notably new clauses 30 and 31, which refer to discipline in schools. You will further be aware, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been highlighted both by the Professional Association of Teachers and, indeed, by the Daily Express. Is there any possibility of our reaching those new clauses before the guillotine at 10 pm?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with this. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that that will depend on the rate of progress on this group of amendments and the next group. To allow further points of order will only waste time and I think that it is unhelpful.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, but I cannot help him.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot help him. I have already said all that I am able to say on the subject.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: It is useful to have this new clause before us, as it provides the opportunity for a debate on further education in Scotland, which is highly regarded in that country and about which there is deep concern. I am certain that tonight's debate will he constructive and useful.
In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) referred to me, and I am glad to say that he quoted me entirely correctly. He quoted a view about which I have become more convinced and felt more strongly over recent months.
There are differences between universities in Scotland and those south of the border. They are differences of history, convention and a host of other factors that I wish to mention. My main point was made in the Croham committee report in its review of university grants. The committee recommended a Scottish committee of the University Grants Committee.
Paragraph 8.19 of the Croham report states:
It is clear to us from the STEAC report"—
to which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth referred—

however that, more than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Scottish universities do operate in a distinctive environment and serve Scottish needs, and that this needs explicit recognition.
That was the recommendation of a Committee set up by the Government. New clause 10 tries to achieve that explicit recognition. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and I are both worried about whether the recognition that exists so far is sufficiently explicit.
As I have said, Scottish universities differ from those in England and Wales to a great extent. A far higher proportion of Scottish universities are older, multidiscipline universities. That means that we have a far wider range of faculties and departments, but we also have far less scope for categorising universities, as now seems to be the fashion, into teaching and research.
A far higher proportion of Scottish universities have medical schools. Those medical schools are among the most expensive areas of university expenditure. The university medical school]n Aberdeen is large in comparison to the whole of the university and its needs must be met. The tragedy is that it acts as a drain on the rest of the university because it is recognised as a good medical school and its needs are expensive. I believe that the Croham report recognised that point explicitly.
There is also a different school system in Scotland. Young people leave school earlier and enter university earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom. They spend longer at university than students elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The normal time in Scotland is four years. There is also a different teacher training structure in Scotland and a different proportion of postgraduate students. I believe that that factor was not taken into account in the University Grants Committee assessment that has been carried out over the past year or so into postgraduate work.
Another enormously important difference is that we are proud of our educational standards and educational history in Scotland. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and was acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Minister. One of our strengths in the face of some of the modern traditions is that our education is broadly based. It has been traditionally broadly based because of the nature arid history of our universities. We give students attending university in Scotland a range of choice. They enter a faculty rather than a department. Instead of creating a straitjacket for the student throughout university life, a student can more easily change from one subject to another or receive a broad range of education that is much more suited to modern living than the form of education perhaps provided elsewhere. I would be reluctant to give up the kind of flexibility and opportunity to change that exist in the Scottish university system.
Those are the differences. We are all aware of them and we acknowledge them. However, we must pay more than lip-service to them. I am sometimes worried about whether people do more than pay that lip-service to them. One has only to consider what happened recently at Aberdeen university and the treatment that it received from the University Grants Committee. I shall not go into the wider issues, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), knows my views and I shall not repeat them yet again tonight.
The geology school at Aberdeen received a good rating from the University Grants Committee in its assessment. However, the Oxburgh committee on earth sciences suggested dismantling that geology department. That would make no sense at all for a university on the edge of the North sea. On one hand there was recognition, and on the other hand there was no recognition at all.
9.15 pm
My other specific example concerns the university of Dundee, where again a double standard was applied. Dundee dental school has a very good teaching record. The review working party suggested that dental schools should draw their students from a 50-mile radius of the dental school. That committee appears to have overlooked the fact that 30 per cent. of that radius is in the North sea. That kind of nonsense makes many people in Scotland very cynical about some of the decisions from the UGC and others.
So what should we do? There is nothing in the Bill that shows that we are going to do anything about it. We have received a commitment from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that they will set up a Scottish committee. That is a good thing. The Croham committee recommended it, and I support it. My real worry is whether the Scottish committee will work in a reactive and advisory role, or whether it will have an initiating role.
Before I decide how I will vote tonight, I want to know my hon. Friend's view. If he sees the committee in a reactive, advisory, rather neutral, and perhaps negative role, I am unlikely to be persuaded to vote against the new clause. If, however, my hon. Friend can assure me that the committee will have an initiating, positive and constructive role, in the light of what I have said, I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that I support that and believe it to be absolutely necessary.
I believe strongly in the community of universities throughout the United Kingdom and that that is in the best interests of academic learning and research. Many people in Scottish universities also believe in that. However, unless in some way we ensure that the Scottish dimension, which I have mentioned particularly tonight, and which I believe is presently being ignored, is positively, properly and constructively taken into account in the new funding arrangements, my credulity will be stretched.

Mr. Bruce Milan: I agree with virtually every word that was said by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It is deplorable that such an important debate should be under the time constraints of a guillotine.
I support new clause 10, but it would only put into the Bill what the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 1 April 1987. Most hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, consider that that is a completely inadequate response to the particular needs of Scottish universities. For those of us who want to go much further, the trouble has been new clause 39, on which I wish to speak. The problem has been to get new clause 39 within the money resolution of the Bill. It is only because the money resolution was extended yesterday that new clause 39 is in order. That is a wholly unsatisfactory way of dealing with such an important consideration.
New clause 39 goes further and, with the consequential amendments, would set up a separate universities funding council for Scotland. Again, I understand that for technical procedural reasons in connection with the guillotine, it may not be possible to have a separate division on new clause 39. I hope that that is not so. If it is, it is deplorable that Scottish Members will be unable to express their strongly held views on the future of Scottish universities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) referred to the fact that the background to this problem goes back to the recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council committee that reported in December 1985. Paragraph 8·29 of that report said:
We are convinced of the need to establish in Scotland, at the earliest opportunity, an appropriate mechanism for the planning and co-ordination of higher education provision across the university and non-university sectors and for the formulation of advice in respect of both sectors to the Government.
I agree. STEAC did not make a specific recommendation at that time because it wanted certain assurances about a satisfactory, United Kingdom-based pay review system for teaching and research in Scottish universities. It had reservations about funding.
In particular, it wanted assurances about adequate research council funding. The subsequent Croham report said that those assurances could easily be given and that there was no reason why, if it were subject to the Secretary of State for Scotland instead of the Department of Education and Science, there should not be for Scotland what STEAC described as an over-arching body to take account of both university and non-university higher education.
On 1 April 1987, the Secretary of State for Education and Science simply announced that it would be a subcommittee of the Universities Funding Council. It would have no executive powers, it would be purely advisory and it would be subject to guidance from the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is inadequate. Even if new clause 10 were to be written into the Bill, that is a completely inadequate response to the needs of Scottish universities. We object to the way in which the Universities Funding Council is to be established. We regret that it is to be subject to undue ministerial influence.
In his statement in April 1987, the Secretary of State said that Scottish universities were not in favour of being separated from the rest of the universities in the United Kingdom. Insofar as that represents the views of the Scottish universities, I consider that it is deplorable and a great mistake. However, the Croham report pointed out in paragraph 8.17 that at the very least, seven out of eight of the Scottish universities wanted a planning body to look at the Scottish higher education sector as a whole.
The Bill contains no such provision. It will not be provided either, by the sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. The only satisfactory solution for Scottish universities is that they should be dealt with together with the rest of the education sector in Scotland and that they should be responsible to the Scottish Office and to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Another difficulty is to get the STEAC recommendations written into the Bill by means of a new clause. My new clause 39 would be a step towards the only


satisfactory solution for dealing with Scottish universities. It would be properly responsive to Scottish needs on the basis of the STEAC recommendations.
So even my clause—and I admit it right away—is a second best, for these technical procedural reasons. But at least it would establish the Scottish universities separate from the UFC and enable us to have a system of funding that would properly take account of Scottish circumstances. It would enable us to respond to the particular problems of Aberdeen and other universities that are suffering very badly under the UGC system at the moment and are likely to suffer even more under the UFC system provided for in the Bill.
If we are not able, for technical reasons, to vote on new clause 39 as well as on new clause 10, I shall consider that absolutely outrageous and an offence to Scottish opinion in the House.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I consider to be a very important matter. It is important to us Scots that every Member of the House should understand very clearly the differences between our universities and universities south of the border, and the differences in the preparation of our schoolchildren for our universities. There is a feeling within Scotland—it would be quite wrong if my hon. Friends on the Front Bench were not aware of this—that somehow this has not been understood or appreciated.
It is important that we Scots put our case properly and effectively. It is important to recognise that we wish to retain the historical background to our schools and universities. We wish to continue with the system that allows our children to have different opportunities from those available south of the border.
I interrupted the speech made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) when he said that Scottish children did not go to universities south of the border, or words to that effect. Of course that is not true; many Scottish children go to such universities.

Mr. Norman Hogg: rose—

Mr. Walker: If I have in any way misinterpreted what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise, but I want to make it quite clear that many children from Scotland take the opportunity to attend universities south of the border, and that we wish this to continue. We do not desire any interruption to that, and it should not be confused with the fact that we wish to retain in Scotland our separate way of doing things. I am sure that there is no difference of opinion anywhere on that.
The other important point is that it be understood south of the border that we have specialist schools, such as the dental school at Dundee, that have a reputation that certainly' we on Tayside are very proud of. I was astonished when I read that the dental hospital in Dundee was one of the establishments that it had been decided to axe, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is clear that no one could have attempted to study in depth what has been achieved over a long period by that dental school.
I am not opposed to change or to rationalising the nation's resources. I want to see the nation's resources rationalised to the benefit of the whole nation. If we Scots appear to be making a very special, narrow Scottish case, I want my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to understand that that is not the position at all. We are not debating the Scottish matter in a narrow, purely Scottish sense. We are

talking about a system of education that has evolved over a long period and has its unique differences. Unless these unique differences are understood sympathetically, one ought not to be surprised if from time to time one comes up with the wrong answers.
I imagine that it is because of this that Opposition Members have tabled the amendments, because they believe that this aspect of the Scottish dimension is not being taken care of.
If my hon. Friend can assure me that the Scottish committee of the Universities Funding Council is going to be capable of giving the very proper, specialist advice that is necessary for our universities, I shall certainly be tempted to take a different view from the one that I hold at the moment. I do not mean by that that my views are hostile, because they are not. I just want an assurance from the Front Bench that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to continue to ensure that the very special Scottish dimension within our universities and our schools will be taken properly and fully into account in any future policy on funding.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to speak as a cochairman of the defence committee of the university of Aberdeen, along with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am also the elected rector of the university of Dundee. Therefore, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am especially concerned about those two universities, although the general principle of the Scottish universities and the separate identity of Scottish university education is of fundamental importance.
The behaviour of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who presumes to have responsibility for Scottish universities, has been less than inspiring during the past half-hour. He seems to think that the opportunity granted by his monstrous Bill to debate the future of Scottish universities is some kind of Scottish hijack of his Bill, rather than our only opportunity to express how strongly we feel about the disgraceful way in which our universities are treated by a Minister who has demonstrated that he neither knows nor cares about the separate and distinctive character of Scottish university education. We must show him that on this issue we have the support of all political parties in Scotland, which agree that the Government's attitude is unacceptable and deeply resented by the Scottish people.
9.30 pm
I give examples from the two universities with which I am most closely associated. The university of Aberdeen has faced severe cuts throughout the duration of this Administration. In the first round it was cut by 24 per cent., which meant that it had to shed 172 staff—one quarter of its total staff. It is now being cut by a further 13 per cent. and is required to shed another 245 staff arid to close at least four departments and possibly as many as seven. How a university can be expected to cope with such draconian behaviour and the slippery exchanges that we have to put up with from the chairman of the University Grants Committee, who clearly speaks with forked tongue when he is representing his views to the university of Aberdeen, leaves people utterly demoralised as to what is expected of them.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside mentioned the department of geology. It is worth elaborating that the university was invited by the UGC to bid for additional funding for the department of geology. Aberdeen is the offshore oil capital of Europe and the administrative centre for offshore exploration and development. The department of geology has responded to that situation over the years and developed relevant courses. The Scottish sub-committee of the University Grants Committee recommended that the department should not only continue in full, but that it should be considered for expansion. The main body of the UGC not only did not accept that; it came up with a proposal recommending its virtual closure.
Frankly, new clause 10 would not go anything like far enough to protect the interests of the Scottish universities. I very much hope that it will be possible to have a separate vote on new clause 39 because it is much closer to the core of what the Scottish universities need. If the Scottish universities did not know that they needed such a body a few years ago, the conduct of the Government and the UGC has convinced them now that that is definitely the right way forward.
The university of Dundee, of which I have the honour to be rector, faced a 20 per cent. cut in the first round. It is now facing a further 17 per cent. cut, in spite of the fact that it is a small university. I do not think that you, Mr. Speaker, will fail to grasp that the smaller the university, the harder it is to impose cuts—hard as it is to do so in all universities.
The attitude adopted towards the dental hospital has astonished and appalled anybody and everybody who has any knowledge of it. We are talking about a dental hospital that is less than 20 years old. Without necessarily revealing my age, may I say that it was built after I graduated from that university. It has a record of attracting more research funding that any other dental school. It is also the cheapest per student of any in Scotland to operate, but it is being recommended for closure.
I think you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why people in Scotland realise increasingly that the Government are launching a vicious assault on the entire university system. The University Grants Committee is predominantly English and I do not quarrel with that as it is an inevitable fact concerning the population of the United Kingdom, but it will look after its own. That is exactly what is happening. Scotland is seen to be expendable by those who neither know nor care about or understand our position.
I do not wish to be too emotional, but it is worth reminding the House that four of these universities predate the Act of Union. I believe that the effrontery of the Government in attacking universities some of which were in operation when England had only two universities is particularly disgraceful. Indeed, there was a time when the city of Aberdeen had two universities and the whole of England had only two. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State and his cronies resent this fact, and that explains why they show such savage hostility to the Scottish university system.
The logic behind the related policies that the Government are pursuing in education, for example in relation to university grants, is an attack upon the integrity

and distinctiveness of the Scottish university system for which we are absolutely determined to fight. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible to vote on new clause 39. I believe very strongly that the new clause would create the sort of organisation whereby Scottish universities would at least know that decisions about their future would be taken by Scots, accountable to Scottish people, in Scotland, by people who knew and understood what the Scottish university system was about. So long as those decisions are taken in the UGC by people who do not know or care, we shall have no confidence in the future of our universities or the Government's approach to them.

Mr. Rowe: Having lived for 12 years in Scotland and having spend seven of them teaching at a Scottish university—[Interruption.]—I may perhaps be allowed to intervene briefly in a debate that seems to be becoming a sad example of Scottish chauvinism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]— defeating an important argument. The point is that for hon. Members opposite to assault the Secretary of State verbally on the basis of a lack of interest in or knowledge of the system is to do no benefit to the cause of Scottish universities, or indeed the course of this debate.
The Scottish universities indeed occupy an unusual position in the education system that is quite different from that occupied by English universities. Scottish universities take many of their students when they are a year younger than students at English universities. Therefore, any decisions that are taken affecting the Scottish university system must have very clear and different effects on the school system there. Therefore, it is important to have a system of controlling the funds that go to Scottish universities to take account of that factor; and it should be seen and recognised by those working in the Scottish university system.
The reason that I am particularly concerned that there should not be an absurdly separatist and chauvinistic assault on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is because I believe that there is a kind of schizophrenia running through the Scottish university system. They are extremely proud, and rightly so, of the very large number of students that they attract from south of the border. They are also proud of the very high standards, for example within their medical schools.
But it has to be said that a consequence of that success is that Edinburgh, for example, is the most over-doctored city in the United Kingdom. If we are considering the distribution of public money in the National Health Service on either side of the border, we have to take into account that insular performance.
I believe strongly that one of the great difficulties which we suffered from when I worked in the Scottish Office was that there was the ineradicable belief in London that the journey from London to Edinburgh was twice as long as the journey from Edinburgh to London, so that it was much easier for people to discuss Scottish affairs in London than in Edinburgh. Because that is the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can give an assurance that the arrangements under which the money for universities will be distributed in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole take full account of real differences in the system. I do not believe that it is reasonable or helpful to the Scottish case to assault my right hon. Friend on the basis of an ignorance which he does not possess.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is tragic that we have only one hour to debate this vital subject. It is clear from the large number of members of all parties from Scotland who are rising how seriously they treat the subject.
Much emphasis has been placed on the traditions of Scottish universities and the fact that we have a broad-based education system, flexibility within the faculties and so on. We have consumer choice, and graduates who emerge from Scottish universities have benefited from a wide education. It would be wrong to leave the Secretary of State with the impression that we are fighting only for the traditions of our universities, vital though they may be. It might be well to remind the House of some of the innovations by Scottish universities to show that they are rising to the challenge of modern society not only in Scotland but in the wider world.
For example, we think of Strathclyde university where people without formal educational qualifications from the deprived peripheral estates of Glasgow are encouraged to attend classes and are benefiting from them. We think, for example, of how the department of geology at Aberdeen university has responded to the developments of the oil industry in north-east Scotland. We think, for example, of how the department of tropical medicine within the faculty of veterinary medicine at Glasgow university has developed tropical medicine to a great extent and has contributed much to many of the developing nations. It has taken on the overall responsibility of trying to assist nations throughout the world. Therefore, it would be foolish of the Secretary of State to think that we are arguing solely for the traditions of Scottish universities.
Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) I believe that new clause 39 would be much more effective. New clause 10 reflects in some ways the commitments given earlier by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but verbal commitments in themselves are not enough. While new clause 10 will insert a written commitment into the Bill, new clause 39 would spell out much more effectively the powers which are being sought by those who are genuinely concerned about the future of education in Scotland. Our universities desperately need their own funding committee and their own voice to safeguard their traditions and to ensue that their future is secure for all our people.

Mr. Frank Doran: I do not want to intimidate you, Mr. Speaker, with the sheaf of notes in my hand. I think that enough has been said to establish the special and unique position of Scottish universities. I have a constituency interest, and the words spoken from all sides of the House about the special position of Aberdeen university should establish beyond doubt the need for a Scottish funding committee. Like my right hon. Friend the Member, for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) I take the maximalist approach and support new clause 39.
In 1981, Aberdeen university suffered a crisis when it faced funding cuts of 24 per cent. with a loss of 250 jobs. The university never recovered from that, but in 1986 it faced further cuts imposed by the UGC and a further 250 jobs are now at stake.
9.45 pm
For the past three or four days I have watched Conservative Members gloat—I use that word advisedly—at the problems created in Dundee by the unfortunate withdrawal of Ford, although I hope that that is not the final position. As a direct result of Government action

—or inaction—my constituency has been faced with the loss of 500 jobs from Aberdeen university in the past couple of years, yet Conservative Members have the effrontery to gloat instead of getting up off their backsides and doing what they can to help matters in Dundee. That is appalling; it is hypocritical.
The expression "Scottish chauvinism" has been used. People in Aberdeen are worried not only about the future of education but about the very existence of the university in future, so savage have been the cuts over the past six years. The university is gearing itself up for its 500th anniversary. When the university was a mere stripling of 220, the Act of Union, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), was passed. That Act specifically guaranteed the future of the Scottish universities, including Aberdeen, "for ever". That was the phrase used.
As a direct consequence of the Government's approach to higher education and their failure to adopt a coherent and consistent strategy, that future is put at risk. My constituents and I fear for the 500th anniversary. Will we still have a university in 1997?
As I said, I support the maximalist approach, and I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to give us the opportunity to vote on new clause 39 if it is at all possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): This has been a brisk and useful debate, and I am happy to join the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in paying tribute to the strength and quality of Scottish education and particularly Scottish higher education, which I have seen for myself. The Scots run our professions; they used to run the Empire, and Scottish—

Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that this is a one-hour debate on a subject of vital importance to Scotland, especially to hon. Members with constituency interests, are we seriously expected to believe that the Minister is proposing to wind up the debate at 9.46 pm?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister stood up. I do not know how long he will take. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Opposition Front Bench to respond.

Mr. Galloway: But this is an outrage. The whole process of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. It is the Minister's turn.

Mr. Jackson: I was certainly hoping to leave some time for other speeches to be made, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
I was paying tribute to the strength of Scottish higher education and to the considerable influence that Scottish intellectual traditions have in the Government. I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in recognising the distinctive characteristics and traditions of Scottish higher education — notably the four-year degree course to which he referred.

Mr. Galloway: rose—

Mr. Jackson: I must press on, because we are operating against a guillotine motion.
What is the Government's approach to higher education in Scotland? We start from the principle that higher education in Britain is national rather than


territorial or regional. That is not just the view of the Government; it was the view of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which spoke of an appropriate mechanism being required to reflect the special characteristics of Scottish universities. That is precisely what we are providing in the Bill. Furthermore, it is the view of the large majority of Scottish universities and Scottish academics, who wish to see themselves as part of the British, European and world main stream. That is why they take the view that they should remain within a national system of funding.
I must say, I am very surprised that the Labour party should be taking this line. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) reminded us all that when the Labour party was proposing devolution for Scotland, it did not at that stage propose the separate funding council that it now suggests.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Jackson: I will not give way, because I am hoping to leave time for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
If there is to be a national approach and a national planning framework for higher education, the same principles of public funding must apply to all institutions in the system. There must be the same unit of resource for teaching and the same standards of research evaluation. That is the approach of the University Grants Committee. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) used extraordinarily exaggerated language when talking about the UGC and its distinguished chairman. The UGC applies the same criteria to the rating of all universities. The result has been that three of the eight Scottish universities have above average rating and that is an impressive fact. It is for the UGC to decide whether any special factors should be applied. It does, of course, apply special factors.
Some reference was made to particular institutions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Gordon. The current debate about university autonomy and the arm's-length relationship between the Government and institutions has emphasised the importance of respecting that principle and the sensitivity of it. The Government do not wish to intervene, and cannot do so, in the relationship between the UGC and individual universities.
We are anxious not to over-prescribe as to the structures of the Universities Funding Council and the procedures that it will be following. However, having said all that, and having emphasised a national policy and the implications of that, it is also important to recognise the characteristics and ethos of Scottish universities and of the universities in Wales and Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North set those out powerfully. It is on that basis that the Croham committee recommended — the Government accepted the recommendation — that there should be three territorial committees for the Universities Funding Council and a

medical committee. The Education Reform Bill implements that commitment, which is our commitment to Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North asked a relevant question about how effective the territorial committees will be. The answer is quite straightforward. It will depend on them. The Government's intention, along with the Croham committee, is that the funding council will not be a representative body. Therefore, we are not talking about a representative from Scotland or from any other branch of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Branch?"] I was referring to particular academic interests being represented. The funding council is not a representative body, nor is it a lobbying body. Its functions will be to advise Government and to manage the university system on the basis of the large amounts of public funds provided for it.
I am trying to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside that it will be for the territorial committees to do their own job, to argue their own case and to be successful and effective. That will be in the context of a Government vision of how the funding councils should work, which is that they should be powerful, pro-active and dynamic bodies. I am sure that the Scots will not be among the least powerful, least proactive or least dynamic elements in the new funding council.

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the two hon. Members representing the city of Dundee, whose university is one of those worst affected by UGC cuts in recent years. Is it right that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who have no constituency interest in the university, should be called when I have not been called?

Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely fair.

Mr. Galloway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can you permit this mockery and insult to Scottish education and to Scotland? We have been given one hour to discuss matters of vital importance to the Scottish education community. That time has been taken up by hon. Members with no interest, either constituency or otherwise, and we have been insulted by the Minister rising to wind up the debate with 16 minutes to go out of 60. It is a mockery and an insult to Scotland and I ask you to rule against it and give us more time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am bound by the motion passed earlier this afternoon on the distribution of time.

Mr. Norman Hogg: It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond quickly so that one of my Back-Bench colleagues can be called to make a point about a university in his constituency.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I do not feel sufficiently reassured to advise my hon. Friends to withdraw their new clause. I shall be asking them to vote in support of what we are proposing. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will be able to join us. They both made speeches that were broadly supportive of our case and I was


impressed by their arguments. I hope they will follow up what they said in the Lobby; that would be the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.
I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), which was tonight's mistake. He said that he had been in Scotland for 24 years. The only conclusion that I could draw from that was that he at least gathered some respect for our education but did not learn a great deal about us. What he alleged that we were saying about the Secretary of State was not true. I have heard no one insult or, as the hon. Gentleman strangely said, assault him.
I very much approve of new clause 39, which is stronger than our proposal, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said. However, it was the Labour party that tabled both new clauses. I hope that in future she and her hon. Friends, who belong to a party whose name I have forgotten, will feel able to put their names to our new clause.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister showed complacency and a complete lack of understanding of Scottish universities and the academics and others who work in them. He said that, in 1979, they showed no awareness of the need for devolution of control over Scottish universities to Scotland, but in 1979 they had no way of knowing how the Government would perform over these past three years. They ken now.
The case for the independence of Scottish universities is clearly made by the example of Dundee university and the way in which it has been treated over the past two or three years by the University Grants Committee. In a letter that accompanied the academic plan that the university returned to the UGC, its principal spelt out clearly that the university faced substantial financial problems arising directly from the changes introduced by the Government.
Those changes included finance being given in accordance with research ratings which took no account of departmental size. The UGC admitted that it was openly hostile to the idea of small academic departments, which it regards as vulnerable. That was a severe blow to a university the size of Dundee, with its tradition of providing a broad subject choice to its students.
The UGC has insisted since 1986 on Dundee university cutting student numbers and closing departments such as those of geology and modern languages which, we are told, are to be exported to other universities in Scotland. In all, the university is set to lose five departments.
Now, the committee is threatening Dundee with closure of its dental school, which anyone who knows anything about the subject knows is the best in Scotland. Someone, somewhere, took the decision that Scotland should have two, rather than three, dental schools on the basis of a vulgar idea of population statistics. That someone took no account of the fact that Dundee dental college serves the whole north-east of Scotland and has within its radius a population of about a million people, who look to that school for excellence.
At stake is the independence of Scottish universities, which has been put at risk by the powers given to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Anyone with the interests of those universities at heart should vote for new clauses 39 and 10, in that order.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The Minister's reply showed crass ignorance of Scottish

university education. That same ignorant view from London makes the academic community in Scotland want a Scottish universities funding committee. If we do not get that, we fear that the view from London will prevail and that Scottish education will lose out. For that reason, we shall support the new clause.

Question put. That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 265.

Division No. 226]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Armstrong, Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, John


Beckett, Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jirn
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Holland, Stuart


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Horne Robertson, John


Clay, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor


Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunningham, Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Charles


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'harn Hodge H'I)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Douglas, Dick
McAllion, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McCartney, Ian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum A.


Eadie, Alexander
McFall, John


Eastharn, Ken
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McTaggart, Bob


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Fearn, Ronald
Mahon, Mrs Alice






Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Wall, Pat


Pendry, Torn
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N.


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Robertson, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Adam Ingram and


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Allen Adams.


Salmond, Alex



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Aitken, Jonathan
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Allason, Rupert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Benyon, W.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cran, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Day, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Dicks, Terry





Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dover, Den
Maude, Hon Francis


Dunn, Bob
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Eggar, Tim
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Mellor, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Miller, Hal


Evennett, David
Mills, Iain


Fallon, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Farr, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Favell, Tony
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Moate, Roger


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moss, Malcolm


Franks, Cecil
Moynihan, Hon Colin


French, Douglas
Neale, Gerrard


Fry, Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Gardiner, George
Nicholls, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Glyn, Dr Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grist, Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawkins, Christopher
Portillo, Michael


Holt, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lightbown, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mans, Keith
Stokes, John


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman






Temple-Morris, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Warren, Kenneth


Thorne, Neil
Watts, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcock, Mike


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Tony Durant and


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard from the previous debate that there was a strong feeling on the Opposition Benches that a Division should be allowed on new clause 39. Do I take it that it is not possible to have a Division on new clause 39 as a direct result of the guillotine motion? If that is the case, Opposition Members consider that to be outrageous.

Mr. Speaker: Sadly, I have to confirm that that is so. We would have had to go quite a long way down the Amendment Paper to reach new clause 39.

Income Support

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider also the following motion:
That the draft Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister has the agreement of the House, so be it.

Mr. Portillo: The regulations make a number of changes to regulations that were debated and approved by the House in November last year. Taken together with the original sets, they complete the detailed framework for two of the major strands of the Government's reform of the income-related benefit system that is to take effect next month.
I shall not delay tonight's proceedings with a detailed exposition of the background to the social security reforms and the reasons underlying the changes. They have been debated by the House on numerous occasions. The majority of the changes are necessary to correct minor or technical defects in the original regulations. Work has been going on since November of last year to convert existing supplementary benefit cases to income support and, since January of this year, to transfer claimants from family income supplement to family credit. During this time the regulations have been subjected to very close scrutiny, and it is inevitable that questions have arisen about the interpretation of particular provisions. Amendments are therefore needed at this stage to clarify the drafting and to put the original policy intention beyond doubt.
In a number of instances, similar provisions are included in both the income support and the family credit amending regulations. The most important are the provisions concerning payments from the Macfarlane trust. This charitable trust, which is to be administered by the Haemophilia Society, has been established to provide grants for haemophiliacs who contracted the HIV antibody-positive virus through contaminated blood products. The Government, as hon. Members will recall, have provided £10 million for the trust.
By virtue of the provisions in the amending regulations, any income or capital received from the trust will be ignored completely in the assessment of a claimant's entitlement to income support or family credit. I am sure that the House will particularly welcome that. I should add that, through an administrative arrangement, beneficiaries will not be required to inform the Department that they' have received payments. The arrangement has been introduced, exceptionally, to keep confidential the individual's condition. Similar provisions on disregards and confidentiality are in the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations, to be debated tomorrow.
A number of amendments in the income support arid family credit regulations are consequential on provisions in the Social Security Act 1988, which received royal assent last week. For example, regulation 27 clarifies the basis on which payment for odd days' entitlement to income


support is to be calculated. The new regulation provides a simple method of calculating part-week payments of income support by apportioning weekly entitlement. Without this amendment, weekly applicable amounts and weekly income would have to be apportioned separately. The change will bring a small but welcome simplification for local offices, and the calculation will be more easily understood by claimants.
The effect of provisions in the 1988 Act is to leave it for regulations to prescribe the date from which entitlement to family credit is to commence. This is covered in the Claims and Payments (Amendment) Regulations, which provide for circumstances in which entitlement to family credit needs to start from a date that is different from the date of claim. As a corollary, the Family Credit (Amendment) Regulations 11 and 12 provide for the benefit rates to be used in calculating entitlement to be those applying at the date when entitlement is to commence. This will ensure that those who claim in advance are assessed at the higher rates if there is any relevant change in the rates —ng a child's birthday which takes them into a higher age band, or an uprating—between the date of claim and the date from which the award is payable.
The House will recall that on 1 March we debated the Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988, which extended the maximum disqualification period for unemployment benefit from 13 to 26 weeks in cases of voluntary unemployment. Regulations 7 and 11B of the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations provide for an equivalent period to apply to income support. Like supplementary benefit, income support will be payable at a reduced rate where a claimant has been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit because of voluntary unemployment.
There are a number of amendments concerning the payment of income support to claimants involved in trade disputes. The amendments are consequential upon the replacement of section 23(8) of the Social Security Act 1986 by section 23A, which has been added to the Social Security Act 1988. The new section 23A, like its predecessor, provides that income support can be paid for up to 15 days when a person who has been involved in a trade dispute returns to work with the same employer, and that any benefit paid is recoverable from either the claimant or his employer. The regulations generally preserve the position as it was under section 23(8). The exception is that payments in kind made during this 15-day period will not be taken into account when calculating entitlement.
Regulations 4 and 5 provide for the seven-day exclusion period still to count where the dispute lasts for less than a week and that a person is not treated as in remunerative work from the end of the exclusion period until the 15th day following his return to work. The other regulations provide for the treatment of income during the 15 days following the person's return to work.
Regulations 6 and 11(a) concern the payment of income support where the claimant fails the availability for work test. These regulations carry forward from the supplementary benefits scheme provision to meet hardship in certain circumstances where the claimant does not satisfy the requirement to be available and is not exempt from that condition.
The new provision is not so rigid as the previous one, when the claimant had to satisfy the adjudicating authorities that the only way to prevent serious risk or damage to the health or safety of the claimant or his family was by way of a benefit payment. Now the claimant will have to show only that he will suffer hardship if payment of income support is not made. The chief adjudication officer will be issuing guidance on the criteria to be used in these cases. Obviously, if a person had some other means of preventing hardship available to him he would be expected to use those resources first; otherwise, it would be difficult to accept that hardship would exist.
The calculation of a person's entitlement under this provision will be based upon the reduced personal allowances used in "voluntary unemployment" cases. It is right to use this level, because the claimant has not satisfied a basic requirement of the scheme. It would be inequitable to make a higher payment. This calculation will be used until either the claimant makes himself available or the risk of hardship ceases.
Regulation 8(b) deals with membership of the family where a person has been in hospital for more than 52 weeks. The effect of the regulation is to provide that children and parents who have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks will be treated as members of the family for income support purposes. This provision is needed for these groups; otherwise, there would be children in hospital for whom benefit could not be claimed and children whose parents were in hospital who would have no access to income support, as children are unable to claim in their own right.
Regulation 9 makes it clear that, in line with existing policy, a home can be treated as a registered residential care home for benefit purposes only if the Registered Homes Act 1984 requires that it be registered.
The regulations before us tonight complete the detailed preparations for introducing a simpler, more coherent, approach to benefit provision for people on low income, whether in or out of work. Much work has gone on behind the scenes, in local offices and in North Fylde, where family credit is administered.

Dr. Norman Godman: Before the Minister finishes, will he provide the House with his latest estimate of the take-up rate for family credit and tell us how that compares and contrasts with the take-up rate for family income supplement? Might not many children in Strathclyde be denied free school meals?

Mr. Portillo: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's later point is that family credit families will not receive free school meals; they will receive cash. The amount of cash averaged over the year is more than the average cost of school meals. One hundred thousand more children across the country will receive the cash than currently receive free school meals, through both family credit and local authority discretionary schemes.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that we believe that the take-up of family credit will be 10 percentage points higher than the take-up of family income supplement. However, the number of people involved is much higher. The contrast is between about 200,000 families who presently qualify for family income supplement and about 470,000 whom we believe will take up family credit. That is why the new benefit will cost about £220 million more than the old benefit.
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the question of school meals, I remind him that every family claiming family credit will automatically get £2·for school meals, whereas before, under family income supplement, over and above the family income supplement, there was an unsatisfactory low take-up rate. Only 70 per cent. of the children on family income supplement took up the free school meals. The new system is superior in all sorts of ways.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that no child will suffer because of the changes by the withdrawal of free school meals?

Mr. Portillo: I cannot guarantee that no child currently getting free school meals will not receive the cash in future. It ought to be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that 100,000 more children will get the cash than are getting free school meals under the combination of discretionary local authority schemes and family income supplement. The hon. Gentleman really should be concerned about the 100,000 more children.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: Why does the hon. Gentleman not stay in the Chamber and make a speech on the subject?

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: No. I have given way twice already.
The exercise to convert more than 6 million supplementary benefit cases to income support which began last November is well on the way to completion, as is the work to transfer claimants from family income supplement to family credit. I wish to express my gratitude to the Department's staff for their efforts and for their remarkable achievement in converting all those cases.
The changes have produced a violent reaction from the Opposition, and no doubt we will hear a great deal more this evening about the alleged inequity of what is proposed. I ask the Opposition one question: what would they have done with the supplementary benefit scheme?
Much of the argument that we have heard during the past two years has been for the status quo. Indeed, on a number of occasions we have heard the case put for adding yet another complicating provision to an already excessively complex scheme. However, we have not heard about the enormous difficulties that people have had in working out what they are entitled to under the supplementary benefit scheme, or of the embarrassment that they may have felt in having to answer questions about their medical condition in order to justify extra payments for laundry, diet or heating.
The most recent complaint concerns the effect of the Budget on those on family credit and housing benefit, on the grounds that they have received only small increases in their incomes instead of tax cuts. This criticism ignores the fact that family credit will cost £200 million more than family income supplement, and suggests that Labour would like to return to a calculation based on gross income so that marginal tax rates of more than 100 per cent. would once again be a feature of the system. The abolition of that absurd situation was a major achievement in the reforms.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is right to point out that at times it has been very confusing for people to work out their benefit rights. That was one reason why so many Labour local authorities set up

welfare rights teams, which pointed out to people what they were entitled to receive with regard to single payments. Ministers then came to the Dispatch Box a nd said that they would change the system because people were suddenly claiming what was theirs by right.

Mr. Portillo: If that is the example that the hon. Gentleman wishes to take, I must tell him that single payments were supposed to be paid for exceptional needs. Increasingly, they have become part and parcel of day-to-day affairs, because the amount of money spent on single payments has risen rapidly. Indeed, it was doubling every two years. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the take-up campaign and people getting that to which they are entitled—which is an important concern—d welcome the reforms, because they will make the benefit scheme much simpler and make it clear to welfare rights officers and to claimants what they are entitled to, because the new basis is so much simpler.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister follow the logic of his argument? If single payments for extreme need are doubling, the need is probably doubling. Will he accept that that is a valid point?

Mr. Portillo: No, I will not, because there is no evidence for that. Single payments have been doubling every two years, but for the entire period between 1979 and 1985 the number of people on supplementary benefit rose by only three fifths. Therefore, I cannot accept that point.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister is not suggesting, is he, that his Department has been making single payments to people who did not meet the criteria in the regulations? If those payments were made to people who fulfilled the criteria, surely the rising trend shows that more people are becoming aware of their entitlement. His Department ought to take pride in the increased uptake, instead of changing the rules so that fewer people receive what they deserve.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the purpose for which the single payments system was established was to meet exceptional need. The take-up was such that it became almost part and parcel of the daily requirements of some people on supplementary benefit. Those payments went to a minority of claimants and it was a cause for concern and a reason for reform.
The greater clarity that is involved in the reformed system is another important step forward, and it is one of the reasons for commending the regulations to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I listened with my usual disbelief to the Minister's extraordinary observations about how grateful we ought to be to the Government for their wonderful scheme. They were shot through with inaccuracies and amounted to downright rubbish.
I remind the Minister that his right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said clearly to the Standing Committee that considered the Social Security Bill in 1985 that the reason for cutting the single payments scheme was that it was being taken up to too great a degree. We hope that family credit will reach a larger number of families than family income supplement. but if it does I wonder how soon it will be before the


Government decide to cut it. The extent of the take-up was their justification for the cuts that they made in social security payments.
It is particularly disgusting that the Minister should use such an argument in the case of single payments. The Government have refused on a number of occasions to make the change. They are well aware that the shortfall in benefit for the families of the long-term unemployed is a minimum of £500 million a year. The shortfall in the day-to-day incomes of those families — never mind the pensioners, or the sick and the disabled—is a minimum of £500 million. It is quite disgraceful to suggest that because single payments began to rise towards £400 million there was some element of fraud.
I recall the incredulity of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who, sadly, is not here this evening, when the right hon. Member for Braintree appeared in all honesty and sincerity to suggest in 1985 that claimants would prefer a streamlined and simplified scheme, even if it meant that they had less money, because they would be able to understand it. There is no greater measure of the gulf between this Government and those who are forced to live on pensions and benefits than the assumption that they would prefer to have less money, provided that they understand the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) led the Minister down a path along which he might have preferred not to travel. The Minister made exaggerated claims about the increase in the amount of money that is to be spent on family credit. He knows that it is only the assumptions about the increased take-up of family credit that justify the Government's exaggerated claims concerning the increase in the amount of money that is being devoted to family credit.
The Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations are comparatively minor amendments. However, almost at the eleventh hour — perhaps I should not say that; there may be another set of income support and family credit amendment regulations before 11 April — the Government have come to the House yet again with another set of regulations to correct yet another set of omissions.
From what the Minister said this evening, one would not have gathered that the regulations that are being amended tonight were published in draft for some time—clearly not for long enough — before they came before the House in what was then said to be their final form. It was clearly not their final form, because tonight we are yet again seeing their final form— unless my worst fears are fulfilled and yet another final form appears in a couple of days' time when the Department has got round to writing another set of regulations.
I should like the Minister to reply to and to give us some information if he can on one point about the proposals to which he referred with regard to the fund for haemophiliacs. He drew attention to the fact that the income support regulations and the family credit regulations will mean that haemophiliacs who receive payment from the Macfarlane trust will not have that offset against any benefit entitlement that they might have. Of course we welcome that.
However, the Minister did not refer to payments from the independent living fund. While we welcome the decision that the Government have made — a little belatedly—about the treatment of payments from the Macfarlane trust, can the Minister say whether it is expected that payments from the independent living fund will be treated similarly? Again, the Government set that up at literally the last minute to try to meet the extra needs of severely disabled people that will not be met from the schemes that the Government are putting before us.
As those payments are intended to cover at least part of the losses that severely disabled people are liable to suffer from April, surely they should be disregarded. It may be that that is an oversight on the part of the Department, but the Minister did not refer to that. Perhaps it is something that the Government intend to do in the future.
The House must forgive me if I do not go through the regulations in numerical order as the Minister did. When we are landed with huge batches of regulations, as we have been, it is not always easy to sort them into the clear and logical order that one would wish. I propose to go through the regulations in terms of the subjects as they appear to me, rather than by their numbering.
Regulation 10(2) of the 1987 regulations provides that if benefit is refused on the ground of non-availability for work, it can be denied, not merely for six weeks but for a full 26 weeks. My understanding is that, under supplementary benefit, the rule is applied only where a specific job is available, or in the case of a single person under 45 years, where short-term work is available locally, and that in future the potential six-month disqualification under regulation 10(1)(b) of the 1987 regulations will also apply to a person who has
neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment".
That is in the income support regulations.
I should like the Minister to clarify two things. First, is it the case that if, under that provision, someone is ruled not to he available for work, and on that ground a deduction is made from his benefit, that deduction will then run for the full 26-week period and there is no provision for such a person to get off the merry-go-round as might be possible if that person was ruled, for example, to have made himself voluntarily unemployed? That appears to us to be the case from the regulations. That seems undesirable, but I would welcome the Minister's answer as to whether that is the way in which the regulations will work.
Secondly, it appears that one way in which the regulations might be used—we believe, is misused— if they were applied to someone who is, in the regulations, ruled to have
neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity suitable employment".
It seems that it might be possible for an adjudication officer, an unemployment officer, a restart officer or whoever is the person involved, to use that provision in these regulations — it was not in the supplementary benefit regulations—to force someone off supplementary benefit even though his supplementary benefit might be being paid at a cash-protected level, into perhaps short-term work, if he is a single person under 45 years. When the short-term work ends, that person might end up going


back on to income support, which might be — and certainly will be if it is a cash-protected payment—paid at a lower level.
If the regulations could work as I have described—it seems clear to me that they could—the Government's weasel words about how everybody, as was said the other evening, will be no worse off, or certainly the majority of people will he no worse off because they will be cash-protected, are yet again shown to have little worth. The interaction between employment and benefit legislation seems to mean that someone could be pushed into circumstances when he or she gives up the very cash protection for which the Government have been making substantial claims.
Another question for the Minister which I have not had the opportunity to pursue since this and many other regulations were published is how, if at all, the provisions for availability for benefit will tie in with the change made in the Social Security Act 1988, following an assurance given in the Employment Bill Committee. A question was raised there about someone being ruled to be not available for work but not having benefit withdrawn immediately while the question was settled. It is not clear how, if at all, the provisions for deductions from benefit or payment of benefit at a reduced rate or for non-payment of benefit tie up with the provisions made in relation to the withdrawal of unemployment benefit, and following discussions in the Employment Bill Committee.
A further question for the Minister in this general area of concern relates to the way in which hardship provisions will operate—for example, in relation to regulation 8(3). In that case, income support is payable, less a 40 per cent. deduction on hardship grounds, to someone who would not otherwise be entitled to it because he or she was ruled to be not available for work.
Again, that broadly reflects existing rules, but in those circumstances we believe that the question whether someone should receive benefit because of hardship should be subject to a right of appeal if benefit is refused by an adjudication officer. The Government have made so much in their discussions generally about the simplicity of what they are doing, and the attempt to have rules that are the same across the hoard, so that people will always know where they stand.
In these circumstances and some others, it seems strange that whether or not hardship exists is subject to appeal. In the board and lodging regulations, which might disappear in the near future and, more pertinently, under section 4 of the Social Security Act 1988 where 16 and 17-year-olds lose all right to benefits, the question whether hardship exists is subject not to any right of appeal, but only to a decision to the Secretary of State.
It is hard for us to see why rights of appeal should be denied in those cases, especially to the young and vulnerable, when the Government are maintaining such rights generally. Can the Minister justify that exemption?

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not of some relevance that we are dealing with curbs and restrictions of the incomes of the poorest in the country, together with changes in the Social Security Act, almost exactly a week after a Budget that has given the richest 5 per cent. of the community 40 per cent. of all the tax cuts and benefits? What a contrast that is between the way in which this Government treat the rich and the poorest in the land.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and he has raised early a pertinent matter to which I intended to turn in my closing remarks. There is no question but that the regulations and the legislation to which they relate are thrown into even harsher relief by the decisions that were made, as my hon. Friend says, almost exactly a week ago.
I want to return to the circumstances in which a 40 per cent. reduction to these already minuscule benefits can be made under regulation 8(2). There are, as many hon. Members will know, circumstances in which someone is ruled by perhaps an adjudication officer to need his incapacity for work reviewed. The case may go to a review authority or to a review medical authority which may decide that the person is capable of some work, or some light work, in the often-used phrase.
Members of the medical profession have drawn attention to the fact that in more and more circumstances the medical judgment of one doctor is being set, deliberately by the Government, against that of another. A GP wrote to me protesting that, while he may decide that a patient of long standing, with whose case he is familiar, is not fit to work, an RMO may decided that he is fit—either fully fit or fit for light work—and that that decision could result in his patient suffering a loss of benefit. He said that he regarded that as a direct infringement of the doctor-patient relationship. He particularly drew attention to the unreasonableness of the circumstances in which a doctor who advised his patient not to work might have that advice countermanded by an RMO after spending, if the patient was lucky, only 20 or 30 minutes on one occasion with the patient.
In another place the Minister attempted to represent the status quo as being the same as that enshrined in these regulations, but we do not understand it to be the status quo. At present, if an RMO pronounces someone capable of light work, that person may continue to produce evidence of incapacity, in the form of certificates, from his own doctor and that may be taken into account. Generally it is felt that, because he knows the case, the view of the doctor should prevail while the decision is being reviewed. I gather that such leeway will not prevail under these regulations and that a 40 per cent. deduction will be made from benefit automatically, even though the person may have made himself available for work pending an appeal.
It appears that when a person's own doctor says he is not fit for work and the RMO says he is fit for work, if that person decides not to appeal—because of feeling discouraged or worried — and says he is available for work he will receive benefit. But if he decides to exercise his right in law and to make an appeal, then for that reason alone he may lose 40 per cent. of benefit. Not only is that harsh and unjust, but it is liable to deprive a person of a right which, in theory, should pertain to him in law. I come to the question of the extension of a deduction for voluntary unemployment when someone has left his place of work. Whereas at one time he might have lost some benefit for six weeks and whereas, as recently as a year ago, he might have lost that benefit for 13 weeks, he may now be liable to lose entitlement to some or all of his benefit for six months.
These regulations deal in social security terms with the employment-facilitating regulations which we debated recently. On that occasion we identified the fact that 400,000 people a year would lose benefit under these provisions. On that occasion the Minister said — his remarks were received almost with disbelief by my hon.


Friends—that it had been found necessary to double the period for which a deduction from benefit could be made because the number of initial decisions on disqualification appeared to have gone up by just under 2 per cent. He added that that benefit would be suspended immediately pending a decision.
Did I understand the Minister correctly on that occasion? Did he say that the rise that he claimed to identify represented an increase in the number of initial decisions to suspend people from receipt of benefit? We must bear in mind that the automatic decision to suspend on an initial basis is made without regard to the facts and without any inquiry; it is an automatic decision, meaning that the person is guilty until proven innocent. It is an automatic suspension of benefit even before the facts are investigated. It is a contrast to the provision in the Employment Bill, to which I referred a few moments ago, where, much more sensibly, payment of benefit may be allowed to continue until a proper decision has been reached about whether someone is falling foul of the employment regulations. In this case the benefit is suspended first and the investigation takes place afterwards.
The Minister will also recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was able to draw attention to the fact that, although the Minister had given a parliamentary reply which indicated that no information was available to enable the Government to reach a decision one way or the other on the justification for doubling the period for which benefit should be lost, a survey had been carried out. The Minister said that he would not have regarded that as a scientific basis for the decision, which is not usually a bar to the Government quoting anything in parliamentary answers or debates. But we take it as a precedent.
Now that we have found out that the report exists and the Minister has put it in the Library, we have had an opportunity to glance at it. We must bear in mind that the report is based on a period when the likelihood of benefit suspension could still apply only for 13 weeks and not the full six months. It is interesting to note that the report showed that 75 per cent. of the periods of disqualification imposed were for the full 13 weeks. Since it also indicated that the average time for disqualifications was over 11 weeks, it appears that of the 25 per cent. remaining, in only a tiny minority of cases was disqualification for less than 13 weeks.
The report shows also that the average time for someone to place a claim, once that person had left his employment, was about 12 days. That appears to counter totally the impression which the Government seemed to be trying to give in that debate—that the country was full of people rushing to the benefit office to demand benefit which they knew they were not entitled to because they had wantonly deprived themselves of the opportunity to work.
The fact that it has taken people some 12 days to get round to going along to sort out their position and to claim their rights appears to indicate, as was suggested at length by a number of my hon. Friends, not that they decided not to bother working, but that often there was distress or difficulty. The loss of the job may be due to other members of the family moving. Yet often those circumstances are used to deny people their right to benefit.
The report shows too that, after the 12 days taken for the initial claim to be made, on average 42 days are taken to decide the claim. So it is six weeks before a formal decision is made on most claims, although for all that period benefit will be lost to some extent. Since we know that it takes an average of 17 weeks to decide an appeal, we are talking about a substantial period, getting on for six months in itself, during which benefit is lost before any proper decision is made, never mind when that decision is confirmed. Again the Minister will recall from the previous debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out that about two thirds of the decisions are reviewed or overturned.
The implication of what the Government have said is that they made the decision to double the period so as to encourage people to go back to work or not to give up work. In fact, in paragraph 7 of the report which the Minister did not want to quote and preferred us not to know about, there is this observation:
there is no indication that either the reason for leaving or the time taken to decide a case has any bearing on the length of disqualification imposed.
Later in the report we discover that there is little evidence to suggest that people are less willing to leave work, or find it easier to return to work, as a result of the application of the voluntary unemployment deduction. The authors of the report comment that they had thought that the data would show that those disqualified were unemployed for shorter periods than others, but that that turned out not to be the case, although it is pointed out that that may be due partly—perhaps even largely—to the fact that those disqualified under the extended period tend to be the young, the less skilled and those who may be expected to have the greatest difficulty in returning to work.
I should have thought it particularly relevant to the Government that the authors of the report point out that, once people understand how the system of voluntary unemployment deductions works, far from being encouraged back into work—as the Government claim —they may well be so concerned about the harshness of the penalty imposed on those who make a mistake when seeking a suitable work placement or whose placement is not of long duration that they will find it easier to continue to receive benefit than to look for work. The authors of the survey suggest that the Government may actually be encouraging people to stay on benefit rather than encouraging them to look for work.
Whatever conclusions one might draw from the survey, and however much one might question its scientific nature, the size of the sample or whether answers were given to all the questions asked, one thing is crystal clear. No one could possibly conclude that it offered any grounds for the extension of the period of unemployment deduction—let alone for the doubling of that period. Perhaps it is not surprising, given that the period was doubled not very long ago, but there is simply no information available to sustain or support the case that the Government sought to make to the House—not very well—a short time ago.
As one might expect of amended regulations following on general regulations passed by the House so recently, the provisions are on the whole minor compared with what we have discussed in recent weeks. However, there is no question but that to consider the detail of the regulations and to listen to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)


and note the absolute complacency of the Minister's replies is to be reminded more and more forcefully that most of the regulations are as unnecessary as they are invidious. They are part and parcel of a series of changes for which the Government's justification has been tenuous from the beginning. It has now been proven to be utterly untrue.
From start to finish, the Government have said that the work of which the regulations form part was necessary because the system had to be simplified — the simplification of the system is one thing, perhaps the only thing, on which we do not disagree—and that was not possible without changes and cuts, without making major savings and without literally millions of people losing as a result. That was never true. To anyone who has followed our debates since the introduction of the review —through the Green Paper, the White Paper, the 1985, 1986

and 1988 Acts and all the regulations, some of which have still, unfortunately, to conic before us — it will have become more and more clear that it has never been true that the Government had no choice about the course that they are pursuing.
Anyone unwise enough to believe the plethora of justifications that we have heard from the Government over the past three years and who listened to the Chancellor last Tuesday will now know that the case was simply untrue from start to finish. It has never been true that the Government needed to save hundreds of millions of pounds at the expense of pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed. It has been true merely that they chose to do so because, like all Governments, they have their priorities. Their priority is those who have and not those who need.

11 pm

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I rise to make two points. First, when we discussed the unemployment benefit regulations recently, the Minister saw fit to ignore the point I made. I am asking him to be so courteous as to deal with that point now and I will draw it to his attention again.
Income support is reduced if unemployment benefit regulations cause the main claimant to lose benefit. Income support regulations cause a reduction of 40 per cent. in the entitlement of the main claimant. This becomes a 20 per cent. reduction if a pregnant woman is involved. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that pregnant women on income support are acknowledged on soundly based medical evidence to have insufficient diets. A woman on supplementary benefit cannot buy an adequate diet to maintain her properly during pregnancy. Therefore, how much less can she buy an adequate diet if her income is reduced by 20 per cent.? When I raised that question before, the Minister ignored it. I ask him to deal with it on this occasion if he can, if there is an answer and if he can advise a woman on 20 per cent. less than income support how to buy an adequate diet.
My second point relates to the treatment of capital. We are all pleased about the sensible attitude shown to capital in relation to the Macfarlane trust and haemophiliacs. However, I have to draw attention to the fact that capital is not always dealt with in such a sensible manner. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the adjudication officers' guide and the instructions given on dealing with matrimonial assets on breakdown of marriage. As I understand it, that guide applies to the treatment of capital wherever capital is taken into account.
The fact is that the adjudication officers' guide gives an odd instruction. If there is a matrimonial breakdown and there is any capital involved, that capital is almost certain to take the form of a house in most families. If it is accepted that there is some joint ownership or joint beneficial interest in that matrimonial home, the adjudication officer must treat the wife as having half that property, even if it is by no means certain that ultimately she will be deemed to have half. In fact, the adjudication officers' guide goes so far as to say that, when it is not in dispute that the property is still jointly owned,
the extent of the claimant's interest (for example whether 5 per cent., 50 per cent. or 95 per cent.) is irrelevant and half the value of the property should be taken into account as her capital.
That can have a serious effect on a claimant's position and the amount deemed to be her capital. It is a nonsensical instruction. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to it and ask him whether he has any answer. If he has no answer, can he bring before the House, if necessary something to alter those instructions? Or perhaps he can do it by administrative action. If the adjudication officer treats a person as owning 50 per cent. of a house when she may really own only 5 per cent., that cannot be irrelevant.
I admit that I am not familiar with the rest of the adjudication officers' guide, but I hope that it is of better quality than the part that I have just read out.

Mr. Barry Field: Most people, especially employers, would agree that the new rules for voluntary

unemployment were long overdue, but how will they mesh with the rules on seasonal employment? As my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate, in areas such as my constituency people rely on seasonal employment. The regulations governing that are not dissimilar from those for voluntary unemployment, except that, when the employment has been seasonal for three consecutive years there is an automatic ban on the receipt of benefit. That creates some discouragement from taking jobs that are available in an area in which, although it has been falling, unemployment is still 13 per cent. in the winter months.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the context of the introduction of income support, will someone who applies for an essential needs payment between now and 11 April and whose application is turned down by the local adjudication officer have the right to appeal against that decision within the framework of the appeals procedure of pre-11 April 1988, no matter how long that appeal takes to be heard by the extant social security appeals tribunal?
The Minister has been given some notice of the second issue I want to raise with him in a letter sent to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Will the applications for 13 weeks' arrears of supplementary benefit made by former employees of British Shipbuilders Ltd., some of which have yet to be processed, be assessed under the existing system, even if 11 April overtakes us before they have been heard? The local office of the DHSS in Port Glasgow has received more than 500 applications from former British Shipbuilders employees and the manager has informed me that about 206 applicants have been paid the 13 weeks' arrears of supplementary benefit. That leaves an outstanding backlog of more than 300 of my constituents.
Similar circumstances surround the applicants to the local DHSS office in Greenock. Natural justice demands that they should be treated in the same way as the successful applicants have been, despite the profound changes to come on 11 April.
I represent about 34,000 men, women and children who depend on social welfare payments. The issue of single payments looms large in their lives. In the financial year 1986–87, the Greenock and Port Glasgow offices paid out about £2·5 million in single payments. The budget which the local managers have been given for the social fund for 1988–89 is about £1·5 million, a third of which is designated for the grants part of the social fund. Those of my constituents who, unfortunately, are in receipt of social welfare payments are seeing public provision for moneylending. For those people the local DHSS offices become the moneylending offices.
The only comment one can make in fairness in crediting the Government with anything is that, if my constituents who are on income supplement go to the DHSS offices in Greenock or Port Glasgow after 11 April, they may obtain a loan. Repayments on that loan will be deducted at source but no interest will be charged. That stands in stark and welcome contrast to the interest charged by the loan sharks who, unfortunately, infest some of the council schemes in the communities that I represent.
For almost a third of the people whom I represent, 11 April will be a bleak day. Perhaps that goes some way


towards explaining why the Tories in my constituency are notable by their absence at every level of elected representation.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Every hon. Member will welcome the setting up of the Macfarlane trust to administer the money given by the Secretary of State to the Haemophilia Society to help those sufferers who have contacted AIDS as a result of treatment with infected blood products. I am delighted that payments made from the fund will be disregarded for the purpose of income support and family credit. It is almost impossible for us to imagine the heartbreak facing haemophiliacs who already face a great burden without the addition of the misery of AIDS, so I am glad to hear that their problems will be relieved in this small way. I am afraid that the sum made available by the Secretary of State, which works out at just over £8,000 per head, is pitifully small considering the difficulties that are faced by those victims, but I nevertheless congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this sensible and fair decision.
I wish that the Secretary of State would employ the same standards of fairness and generosity when he turns his mind to the disqualification of benefit for people who are classed as voluntarily unemployed. On 1 March we debated this issue and the Government tried, I believe not convincingly, to argue a case for extending the disqualification period from 13 to 26 weeks. They clearly lost the argument in the House but, as so often, won the vote on the night. Tonight we are debating the same question of the reduction of income support for people judged to be voluntarily unemployed.
As many hon. Members, including myself, have said before, there is no convincing argument for extending the period of disqualification. The Government argued that because the number of voluntarily unemployed people was rising, increased sanctions were required. There is no evidence that people are greatly aware that such a sanction exists and that it works. In the previous debate, the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled said :
Following the 1986 change one would have expected the percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit in situations of 'voluntary unemployment' to have fallen. On the contrary, the absolute number of instances where a disqualification or deduction was imposed rose".—[Official Report, 1 March 1988; Vol. 128, c. 834.]
The Minister appeared to have made a fairly convincing argument against sanctions on the grounds that they did not work, but instead he drew the conclusion that the problem was that sanctions were not tough enough and should therefore be extended to six months.
The Government have decided on this extension despite considerable evidence that, in many cases, the decision to view a person as voluntarily unemployed and to remove his right to unemployment benefit and reduce his supplementary benefit is wrong.
In his 1986 report, the chief adjudication officer concluded that a staggering one in three cases were defective. While that situation prevails, whereby many people are quite unjustifiably facing hardship, it is incredibly irresponsible to extend the maximum period of disqualification to six months. We are not discussing a small group of people. On the Government's own figures, of the 420,000 people a year who are disqualified, about

180,000 also have their supplementary benefit reduced. Most of the remaining 240,000 are not entitled to benefit at all.
In the debate on unemployment benefit, I said that many mistakes are being made and that often people are not even repaid money owing to them when errors are discovered. The survey of citizens advice bureaux commissioned by the Low Pay Unit found an alarming catalogue of fears about the way in which the system is currently conducted. In particular, the survey concluded that people are being automatically disqualified in all cases, except redundancy.
In a previous debate, we heard about a number of terrible cases of people being forced to give up work because of unreasonable conditions, such as over-long hours, poor pay or harassment while at work. None of those accounts was able to move Ministers, but there is little doubt that large numbers of people are forced to leave work through no fault of their own and in circumstances that reasonable people would accept. They should not suffer further by having their benefit reduced for six months as well.
The citizens advice bureaux survey also showed that the maximum disqualification period is automatically imposed in virtually all cases, with no proper evaluation of the circumstances. Poor decisions are being made on a regular basis, and the Minister knows that. Despite that, he is determined to push through the extension of the disqualification period, and I urge him to think again, even at this late hour.
I should like to take this opportunity of raising another matter with the Minister. I have recently seen a copy of the application for family credit. We are used to official literature being difficult to understand, but this form is incredibly complicated. It is no less than 17 pages long. Given that statistics clearly show that many of the people applying will be semi-literate, or even illiterate, and that the Government have estimated that take-up of family credit will be at least 60 per cent., is the Minister satisfied with this situation? Finally, perhaps the Minister will explain the determination of the amounts, which I find it very hard to understand.

Mr. Tony Banks: When the Minister introduced the regulations, he correctly said that, in the past, it had been difficult for people to understand the nature of their entitlement to claim under the various benefit headings. That is why I intervened and said that a number of Labour local authorities had set up welfare rights teams to go into the communities showing people what they were entitled to claim. That created a great deal of extra demand at the various DHSS offices, particularly in London.
The Government did not applaud those Labour local authorities for rightly pointing out people's entitlement. They did not commend and support such activities. Instead, they condemned authorities such as the Greater London council, saying that that was not their business and they were not social service authorities.
When Labour authorities continued to act in that way, the Government said that, since there was such a large take-up of the various benefits, they would change the nature of the system by removing the entitlement to benefit. I found that a perverse way of dealing with the matter, given that people were only claiming what they


were entitled to receive. It was not as if they were fiddling or deceiving; they were simply claiming what was theirs by right.
But the Government relied on the fact that there was widespread ignorance of people's entitlement. Instead of trying to alleviate that, they decided to take away people's rights. Of course the Minister was correct to say that he has made the matter much simpler. He has made it simpler because he has taken away a lot of entitlement. Before, people had very little; now they have nothing. That makes it simple and it can be well understood by everyone.
I have been looking at the regulations. This is intended to be a simple system so that people will get that they are entitled to. I have been trying to understand part VII, entitled "Calculation of income support for part-weeks". I shall read it for the record and for the purpose of illustrating my point. It says:
Amount of income support payable
73. — (1) Subject to regulations 75 (modifications in income) and 76 (reduction in certain cases), where a claimant is entitled to income support for a period (referred to in this Part as a part-week) to which subsection (IA) of section 21 of the Act (amount etc. of income-related benefit (a)) applies, the amount of income support payable shall, except where paragraph (2) applies, be calculated in accordance with the following formulae—
(a) if the claimant has no income, N × A./7
10(b) if the claimant has income, (N × (A - I))- B." /7
The Minister, being a new young Member, may understand that entirely, but I suspect that my constituents in the London borough of Newham will find it very difficult to understand. That really is not surprising. I doubt whether at this time of night any hon. Member understands precisely what that means.
If the Minister is serious, and determined that matters will be made much more explicable, will he tell us when he replies exactly what the Government are doing to alert people in boroughs such as the London borough of Newham, which has between 32,000 and 33,000 people claiming supplementary benefit, to their exact entitlement? The Government have changed the rules to make it much more difficult for Labour local authorities to inform people of their rights. What are the Government doing to explain in simple terms what people will be entitled to out of this much smaller pot that is now on offer?
While I am talking about smaller pots, let me refer the Minister to the situation in the various DHSS offices in my borough of Newham. In Canning Town, single payments in 1986–87 amounted to £808,392 and in 1988–89 the social fund total will be £408,556. In Plaistow in 1986–87 single payments amounted to £817,146 and in 1988–89 the social fund total will be £540,718. In Woodgrange park in 1986–87 single payments amounted to £1,312,132 and in 1988–89 the social fund total will be £889,186. Social fund allocations as a percentage of single payment awards based on the 1986–87 figures will be 51 per cent. in Canning Town, 66 per cent. in Plaistow, and 68 per cent. in Woodgrange Park. Social fund allocations — grants only — as a percentage of single payment awards based on figures for the same period will be 15 per cent. in Canning Town, 20 per cent. in Plaistow and 20 per cent. in Woodgrange Park.
That is very easy to understand. It simply means that that much less money will be available to service the needs

of the London borough of Newham and some of our poorest people. Mine is the second most deprived local authority area in the country.
We do not need the Minister to come here and tell us that the regulations are so complicated that we cannot understand them, and that therefore they will be changed to a point at which there will be nothing to claim. We want him to recognise the depth of poverty in boroughs like Newham, and to do something about it. All the fiddling, the fancy language and the civil servant jargon — and they are not paid pennies for this sort of rubbish —amounts to nothing. What we want is extra resources to deal with the poverty in boroughs such as mine.
The regulations—like everthing else that comes from the Government—amount to nothing but taking from the poorest in our country. The Government are a disgrace, and I am surprised that the Minister has the face and the gall to come to the House, even at this hour, and try to put these measures forward.

Mr. Tony Favell: Hon. Members —Conservative Members, certainly—will realise that an orchestrated campaign is in progress against the social fund. Many of us welcome the fund, however. I have found that single payments to those on income support — or supplementary benefit, as it is now — create considerable jealousy between those on supplementary benefit and working people on low incomes.
Recently, a working widow in my constituency called me to her home because she was facing a compulsory purchase order. She lived on a poor estate, all of which was being pulled down. She said, "Mr. Favell, I have worked since I lost my husband 10 years ago. I have brought up two daughters, who have been properly educated, and I am extremely proud of them. I am now being removed from my home. I have no savings, and I shall receive virtually nothing to furnish my new home because I have always worked. Next door is a family of five. Both husband and wife have never worked, but they will scoop the pool. I consider that desperately unfair."
I quite agree with her. But now the family next door will —or rather would—be given a loan, which would have to be repaid. That I consider justice; the present system is injustice.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Did the hon. Gentleman put that to the Chancellor before he gave billions away to the wealthy in our society? It would have been a very proper proposition to make to him then. Now, he proposes to take all this money away from the poorest people.

Mr. Favell: I do not follow the hon. Lady's point. I am saying that here is a widow who has worked all her life and who is bound to furnish her own home, having no savings, because she happens to be working; whereas the family next door scooped the pool, and have a new home permit. She sees no justice in that.
At present, a 24-hour-a-week rule applies to the claiming of family credit. Many women who are separated from their husbands work only 20 hours a week—half the normal working week—and will not be eligible for family credit. Normally, it will not affect a woman who is separated from her husband if she happens to live in rented accommodation. However, if she remains in the family


home, as is normally the case if she has young children, she will be adversely affected if she works only 20 hours a week as opposed to 24 hours. Many women with young children want to work only 20 hours a week so that they can take their children to school and collect them afterwards. However, they will not be eligible for family credit if they work for only 20 hours a week. That is an injustice and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into that point.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: There is really something obscene in the fact that we are expected to debate one set of regulations after another about social security late at night. The Minister moved the regulations in such a technical way that one would have thought that he was describing the repair manual of a car. In fact, he has put the flesh onto all the cuts and misery that have already been imposed by successive Social Security Bills that he and his colleagues have brought to the House.
I sat through both Committee stages of the Bills that brought this wretched process into operation. At every stage, the Government have tried to find someone who is allegedly fiddling the social security system and they have allegedly tried to simplify the system. However, all this is actually a cloak for the most massive cut in social security spending that has been imposed in the past two years.
Last week the Government introduced a Budget that gave £4 billion to those people who already have a great deal of money. They are now trying to further curtail the incomes of those who are already living on the breadline in the capital and elsewhere in the country.
The way in which the Government have introduced these regulations is discreditable. The way in which the Government have introduced a concept of cash-limiting benefits by sleight of hand — so that, instead of measuring the real needs of people, they cash-limit that need so that those people will suffer — is also discreditable.
The Government have also privatised the charitable system by establishing charities themselves. It is offensive that part 2 of the Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations — the amendment of regulation 2 — deals with the Macfarlane trust. I am not condemning people who have set up trusts to look after people whom the welfare state has forgotten—for example, haemophiliacs. However, it is wrong and discreditable for the Government to seek to use that charitable money to bail themselves out because they have spent all the money that should have been spent on supporting those people on tax cuts for those who can already afford them.
I do not favour a social security system that relies on the poor box and charity, which is what the Government are introducing; I favour a system that guarantees the elimination of poverty and degradation that the Government's social security system has imposed on so many people.
We will debate other regulations later in the week and in future. The Minister will find that, come 11 April, when the full horror of the hardship, chaos and misery hits the poorest and the monitoring begins to take effect of the unfairness, lack of regulation and arbitrary nature of the cash limits that have been imposed and poverty that has been caused in the inner-city areas, he will be brought back to the House, forced to introduce regulations and to admit that the Government's legislation is unfair and

unworkable. One day, the Minister will be driven out of office and we will have a Government committed to eliminating poverty from society rather than creating two nations, which is all that Conservative Members understand.

Mr. Portillo: With the leave of the House, I will reply.
I want first to deal with some points of detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) asked about seasonal workers. There is no relationship between the regulations and seasonal workers. The Social Security Advisory Committee is considering the whole issue of seasonal workers at the moment and is due to report soon. It would be best if my hon. Friend waited for the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Allan Rogers: That committee has been considering the problems of seasonal workers for well over 15 months now. The Minister said that it will report soon. When will it report?

Mr. Portillo: I am not responsible for those deliberations, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) would like to see the result of those deliberations soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) is obviously worried about people who are working fewer than 24 hours and are not eligible for family credit. C)One of the important points in the reform is that the maximum number of hours that a person can work and still qualify for income support has been aligned with the minimum number of hours to qualify for family credit. Therefore, a person working only a few hours a week is eligible for income support, and a single parent would have the advantage of the £15 disregard in earnings.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). I remind him that single parents may have that advantage, but they will have the disadvantage of not being able to offset their work expenses against their earnings, and that would probably lose them £25.

Mr. Portillo: That would depend on the case. Not many single parents have that level of expenses. The £15 disregard will apply no matter what their previous expenses in earnings were.

Mr. David Winnick: Does not the Minister want to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on saying bluntly what the Minister cannot say from the Dispatch Box? Clearly, the hon. Member for Stockport had only contempt for the poorest in our community who have to apply for single payments. He said bluntly what the Tory party really believes.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport expressed no contempt whatsoever. He said that people living just above the supplementary benefit level who do not qualify for single payments are resentful and find it difficult to understand why people who happen to have an income of a few pounds less qualify for single payments. That is a very serious point and is widely felt around the country. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would do well to acknowledge that that is the case.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was concerned to know whether the disregard of payments in


the case of the MacFarlane trust would be extended to the independent living fund. The answer to that is in due course we will introduce regulations to that effect. That was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in a recent written answer.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said that the family credit form was incredibly complex. I would ask him to distinguish between two different things. I do not believe that it is incredibly complex. It is a very long form because it explains about the benefit at the same time as it asks the questions. It is designed in such a way that, in plain English, it invites claimants to skip those sections of the form which do not apply to them. The average claimant will not have to fill in all 17 pages of the form.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was worried about how claims made under the supplementary benefit regulation would be treated. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that any claim made under those regulations will continue to be treated under those regulations until the matter is resolved. That includes whatever level of appeal a claim might reach.
There was enormous talk about cuts, but I can tell the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that the family credit system will have £200 million more than family income supplement. In the case of family income support, £100 million extra is being put in. The public expenditure involved in income support is £400 million more than would have been involved in continuing the supplementary benefit system. Those are the relevant figures.

Ms. Diane Abbott: What about single payments?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady says, "What about single payments?" What about the sums of money which I have just told her about?
The Opposition wish to compare the level of single payments in 1986–87 with the level of the social fund, but they disregard entirely the extra money being put into the basic benefits on which people are being asked to live. They cannot leave that out of consideration. If Opposition Members wish to argue that money is being sucked out of the community and that less money is available for the poor, they have to take into account the extra money that is being put into the basic rate of benefit. They ignore that. I am telling them that £400 million over and above what is required for supplementary benefit is going into income support. That cannot be ignored.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Minister guarantee that everybody who is in receipt of some form of state benefit, particularly if it is supplementary benefit, will be better off after 1 April than he is now?

Mr. Portillo: According to our figures, nearly nine out of 10 claimants will be no worse off, or will be better off, in cash terms, after the change in April. In real terms, nearly two thirds will be the same, or better off, taking into account all the changes in benefit.
The figures are well known to the Opposition, yet they are ignored time and time again. The social security reforms are not about cuts. They are about the better directing of benefits to the people who are most in need. The Opposition ought to welcome the fact that they

remove some benefits from people who have either relatively high incomes or relatively high amounts of capital and that they direct extra benefit towards particular priority groups, including families with children —they are highly represented among the poorest groups in society—and the sick and the disabled. Both groups will do well by these reforms.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has just made a very important revision of the Government's figures. He said that two thirds of the claimants will be better off, in real terms, as a result of the changes. How does he reconcile that statement with the Government's published figures that show that 500,000 more people will be worse off as a result of the changes? Almost 4 million people will be losers, compared with just over 3 million people who will gain from the changes. That cannot be reconciled with the Minister's extravagant claim that two thirds of the claimants will gain from the changes.

Mr. Portillo: I said that nearly two thirds would suffer no loss, or would be better off in real terms. I stand by that statement.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) referred to a pregnant lady in a family whose benefit is reduced and asked what her position will be. The hon. Lady knows that we are dealing with a reduction of benefit for the claimant, not for the claimant's family. The rate for the claimant's family will continue to be the full rate.
In the event of there being a pregnant woman in the family, the male claimant's rate is reduced by 20 per cent. rather than by 40 per cent. The total effect on the benefit received by the family, taking into account average rent and rates and the receipt of housing benefit, could be as little as 5 per cent. The explanation for that is to be found in the words that I uttered when we debated the voluntary unemployment deductions.

Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: No, because only one minute is left to me. I have given way on a number of occasions.
The Opposition have compared the Budget proposals with social security payments. Since 1978–79, social security benefit expenditure has increased in real terms by £12 billion.

Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: No.
Of that figure, one third — that is £4 billion — is estimated to be on account of real increases in the average amount of benefit that is paid. No family on supplementary benefit is worse off now than it was in 1978. We should not forget that these social security reforms will add £420 million to public expenditure in 1988–89—

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Mr. Portillo: —and that the social security programme as a whole will—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 141.

Division No. 227]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Alexander, Richard
Allason, Rupert






Amess, David
Holt, Richard


Amos, Alan
Howard, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Ashby, David
Hunter, Andrew


Aspinwall, Jack
Irvine, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jack, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Janman, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Knapman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Knowles, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Peter
Lang, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Latham, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bowis, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brazier, Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bright, Graham
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lilley, Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Buck, Sir Antony
Lord, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Burns, Simon
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Burt, Alistair
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Butcher, John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Butler, Chris
Maclean, David


Butterfill, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Malins, Humfrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mans, Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Maples, John


Carttiss, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Cash, William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chapman, Sydney
Mates, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Maude, Hon Francis


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mellor, David


Colvin, Michael
Miller, Hal


Conway, Derek
Mills, Iain


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Miscampbell, Norman


Cope, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Couchman, James
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Cran, James
Moate, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Monro, Sir Hector


Davies, Q. (Starnf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Day, Stephen
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Devlin, Tim
Neale, Gerrard


Dorrell, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Dunn, Bob
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Eggar, Tim
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Evennett, David
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Favell, Tony
Pawsey, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forth, Eric
Portillo, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Powell, William (Corby)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Franks, Cecil
Rathbone, Tim


Freeman, Roger
Redwood, John


French, Douglas
Renton, Tim


Gale, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Riddick, Graham


Gill, Christopher
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Grist, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rost, Peter


Hawkins, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew





Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Speller, Tony
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Richard Ryder.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Beckett, Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bell, Stuart
Graham, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Ingram, Adam


Clay, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clelland, David
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Livsey, Richard


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tarn
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alexander
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Murphy, Paul


Fearn, Ronald
Nellist, Dave


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry






Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Wall, Pat


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Alun Michael.


Strang, Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

FAMILY CREDIT

Resolved,
That the draft Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, but you will be aware that earlier today the Prime Minister relaunched her anti-litter campaign and that some fetching pictures of her were to be seen in St. James's park picking up pieces of litter that had been dropped by people in the park.
If we are to have a serious anti-litter drive, this House should set an example. One need only look around the Chamber to see how filthy it is. Quite honestly, the House should set an example, and I therefore ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that hon. Members should take seriously what the Prime Minister suggests — that we should keep Britain tidy and that we should start by keeping the Chamber tidy, unless hon. Members wish to invite the Prime Minister to come here and earn a bit of pin money by clearing it up tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His point has been noted.

Tree Preservation Orders

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawenl]

Mr. Julian Brazier: This is the first time that I have applied for an Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me one immediately. I am particularly grateful to the Department of the Environment, from which I have received a speedier and greater level of co-operation in this matter than I have received from any Government Department on any issue since I was elected to this place. That co-operation has come from all concerned, from the Secretary of State downwards, and particularly from the Minister for Sport, who will reply to this debate, and those working in his private office, who have been working overtime on the urgent matter that I raise tonight.
The House will be aware of the devastation which occurred in south-east England as a result of the storm. But some hon. Members may not be aware of an event which took place 11 days ago and which potentially in the long run could do more damage to the woodlands of England even than the storm.
That event was a judgment in the Court of Appeal on two small woods, Quilters and Featherly, in my constituency, They are composed of sweet chestnuts which were planted certainly no later than 1600 and which lie next to a site of special scientific value. They are situated in a valley—in my view, the loveliest valley in east Kent —which has the rather evocative name of Pett Bottom.
On March 11—I will not go through the chronology since the owner began trying to grub up the trees in these woods five years ago — a ruling was given that Canterbury council should pay almost £50,000 in compensation to the owner of the woods so that they should be preserved from being ploughed up as farmland.
Before going into the detail of this matter, it is worth considering why we should preserve woodland other than for commercial forestry. There are four additional reasons. The first is the landscape value, and these two woods are situated in one of the last three major areas of outstanding natural beauty left in the three south-east counties of Surrey, Sussex and Kent. The second is the amenity value for people who want to walk their dogs, take their kids for a picnic, or whatever. These woods have a perimeter path round them which makes them accessible to the public. The third is the ecological value which, for example, applies in shelter belts in protecting top soil. Finally, there is the wildlife aspect. All these are reasons why it is important to preserve woodland in the countryside.
Let us consider what the judgment of 11 March means. It applies to all coppice woodland with a diameter at chest height of under 15 cm. It says that if any council anywhere chooses to slap a tree preservation order on a coppice to prevent its owner ploughing it up or using it for any other purpose not covered by the town and country planning Acts the council is bound to pay him the full difference between the value of the land for the purpose for which he wants to use it and its value as forestry. Perhaps I should explain that coppice has nothing to do with acreage or the species of tree involved; it is a form of forestry management. All coppice woods, if properly managed, are below the requisite size.
Coppice woodlands are important in the country as a whole. They form quite a large proportion of our woodlands. They are important in the south-east counties. They are especially important in Kent where they form 60 per cent. of all the county's woodlands. Of course, there is a supreme irony in that the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill which is now in Committee is trying hard to divert land away from farming towards woodland because of the CAP. Yet as a result of this judgment owners will be entitled to convert woodlands back for "farming the CAP" or be compensated handsomely for not doing so. In other words, the wood owner can "farm the CAP" at the taxpayers' expense with all the subsidies which are involved in farming today.
The result is that developers are closing in. A developer who wants to buy a wood and plough it up for five times its value as a woodland knows that if a council steps in his way he can claim compensation. Unless there is rapid change, most councils will be unable to put on tree preservation orders to protect woodlands.
Before suggesting a way forward, I should like to touch on the nature of tree preservation orders. They can involve single trees or woods. In the latter case, with which I am concerned, they involve a careful survey to determine exactly the extent of the trees on which the order is based and a fairly complicated legal process involving the sealing of documents, which takes time. The result is that the owner is prevented from destroying the trees. I say "destroying" because it is not only a case of felling them but of perhaps allowing animals to graze among them, which kills young trees.
Tree preservation orders are not entirely negative. When a TPO is made, an owner is automatically put in touch with a considerable body of forestry expertise to enable him to understand how to look after the trees and at what point they are due for felling. In a coppice site in a typical period of 15 to 20 years a small proportion will need to be felled and replanted. The owner will also be advised on tree surgery.
The only weakness of the TPO system is that it is cumbersome. When the Minister is considering the whole picture, he should think about extending the concept of the conservation area to cover woodlands. We have one small group of woods in my constituency protected in this way because they form part of an estate around a house, Broome park, which is designated a conservation area.
What is the way forward? I stress that I am not trying to teach the Department of the Environment how to do its job, but I should like to make a couple of constructive suggestions as to what might be the best way to solve this serious and urgent problem.
The first, and perhaps the simplest, option involves no change in the law. Article 5(b) of the tree preservation order says that there is no need for an authority to pay any compensation
in the case of trees other than trees comprised in woodlands
where
the trees have an outstanding or special amenity value.
The deletion of the words
other than trees comprised in woodlands
would go quite a long way to filling the loophole.
The second option would be to allow the Forestry Commission to extend its felling licence requirements to cover trees far below the present diameter of 15 cm.
I hope that you will forgive me Mr. Deputy Speaker; I realise that I am not supposed to call for a change in the

law. However, I know that on Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir. J. Farr) hopes to table an amendment to the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill in Committee which would limit any possible compensation payments to the forestry value of the land, and thus effectively eliminate the problem from a financial angle.
In summary, the test case was fought over two small and beautiful woods in a very beautiful valley, only about five miles from my home and in one of the last three remaining substantial areas of outstanding natural beauty in the south-east of England. The woods have been there for a least 400 years. To keep those two small woods, the council will have to pay almost £50,000 in compensation. If that sum had not been arrived at in relation to the prices of several years ago, it would be much greater. Councils do not have that sort of money to throw around. Unless changes are made, every privately owned piece of coppice land in the country will be at risk — from a threat greater than the so-called hurricane.
I stress again my gratitude for the tremendous cooperation of the Minister and his staff on this matter, and I look forward to hearing his response.

Mr. Ian Taylor: rose—

Mr. Andrew Rowe: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I trust that the hon. Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) have the permission of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the Minister to speak.

Mr. Taylor: I shall make a short intervention in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). This is a very serious matter and I was most disturbed that the Court of Appeal ruling gave landowners the ability to cash in on the difference between the value of land for the use to which they wish to put it and its value as forestry.
I represent Esher, in the county of Surrey, and I know the devastation that the ruling could cause if it were taken to its logical conclusion by owners of coppice woodland. We must consider the matter urgently. My hon. Friend has put the case clearly in his thoughtful speech, and I entirely endorse what he said.

Mr. Rowe: I do not remember an Adjournment debate that has been as well-attended as this one, although it is perhaps surprising that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who takes such an interest in the affairs of Kent, is not present.
This is a matter of the utmost gravity. Part of my constituency falls within the district of Maidstone borough council — I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is also here — which made representations on this matter early in the hearings before the courts.
My constituency contains an area of outstanding natural beauty, and within that area we have a farmer who is unique in Britain in that he has been to prison for his cavalier treatment of woodlands, trees and hedges. He is but one example of the sort of farmer who believes passionately that the only purpose of agriculture is to


produce the maximum number of crops possible and views all woodland, or nearly all woodland, as some sort of obstruction to that purpose.
I believe that there are many such farmers, although, fortunately, they are not a majority. It would be dreadful if farmers of that ilk were given an open passport to threaten to destroy woodlands, knowing that the only way in which they could be stopped would be by the payment of large sums of ratepayers' money. It would be impossible for the rates to carry that sort of charge, so there would be an agonising choice as to which coppice woodlands would be saved and which one would allow to be destroyed. It would totally undermine the whole purpose of the diversification of farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has already described so well.
It is a matter of the utmost urgency. I know that there are already several applications for the freedom to destroy valuable coppice woods. That is but the beginning of what will be a torrent of applications if urgent action is not taken.
I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has expressed considerable sympathy with our point. I have asked whether there is any possibility of the matter coming within the terms of the long title of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill—I sit on the Committee of that Bill—but I believe that the matter is still to be resolved. If, as I suspect, it would be difficult to do that, it is a matter of the utmost urgency that legislative action is taken to prevent what would be the most damaging attack, certainly on the countryside of Kent, that it would be possible to imagine.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I should first place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for his kind comments addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my private office and the officials, who have done a great deal of work on this matter. I should like to couple with that the view that, having looked at this in great detail, I and my colleagues at the Department of the Environment regard this as a very serious issue. We echo the strength of opinion that has been put to the House this evening by my hon. Friend the Member Canterbury and by my other hon. Friends.
If I am not in a position to go as far as answering the specific points and the various issues that have been brought to the attention of the House, I hope my hon. Friends will understand that that in no way diminishes the seriousness with which we are addressing the issue as one of importance requiring a speedy decision. It is merely a reflection of the need to take into account consultations with other colleagues and other Departments. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to address some of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends and to satisfy the House of the commitment that I have expressed in general terms.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury on his dedication to detail, his commitment to this constituency matter and his recognition of the far

broader perspective of this issue in terms of its national implications. I believe that that point was echoed by my other hon. Friends during their interventions.
Following the storm of 16 October and the havoc that it wrought on the landscape of southern England, all of us are now even more conscious of the vital importance of our heritage trees and woodlands. Tree preservation orders have long been available to local authorities to assist in making provision for the preservation of trees and woodlands. They are widely used and have the effect of prohibiting felling and other work on the trees concerned, unless the local planning authority gives its consent. Such orders apply in a variety of situations, from individual trees in private gardens to whole woodlands. The case involving Canterbury city council, which was the subject of the recent High Court decision, is in the latter category.
As we have heard, in 1983, a local farmer, Mr. Bell, sought the consent of Canterbury city council to grub out some 39 acres of coppice woodland for conversion to agricultural use. The application was refused and an appeal to the Secretary of State was turned down in September 1984. In June 1986, the tribunal awarded substantial compensation to Mr. Bell, based on the increase in value of the land that would have occurred had it been converted, as he wished, to arable use. Subsequently, Canterbury city council lodged an appeal with the High Court and the case was heard last month, when judgment was reserved. It has now been given and the court has, as the House knows, rejected the appeal.
The Government recognise the concern that this outcome has caused among local authorities and environmental organisations. There is a feeling that, faced with the prospect of sizeable claims for compensation, it might be difficult for local authorities to contemplate making tree preservation orders in such cases, or to refuse applications for consent under the terms of existing orders that apply to woodlands.
Against that background there is a need, as hon. Members have accordingly emphasised, to ensure that there should be no reduction in the general effectiveness of such orders, made or applied in these circumstances, particularly when they involve ancient woodland of great conservation significance. We are therefore urgently consulting colleagues in interested Departments to explore appropriate means of achieving this. Our intention is to take prompt action to remedy the situation, and while I cannot anticipate tonight—for the reasons I have given —the precise way in which we shall do so, or the precise legal form that it will take, we hope to be able to inform the House of our proposals shortly.
I must emphasise that this action will be an interim initiative, following the court's decision. The wider picture is that the legislation—both primary and secondary —relating relating to tree preservation orders and procedures is generally complex and dates back in its origins some considerable time. We therefore believe that the time has come to look more basically at the scope and detail of the various statutory provisions.
We shall therefore be undertaking a wide-ranging review of the various provisions to identify whether any further legislative changes may be necessary to clarify and improve the statutory framework. In mounting such a review, we shall consult widely with various interested bodies, and in that process will consider any further


representations which may be made about the basis and application of compensation to tree preservation order legislation.
My hon. Friend raised a number of points, and I want to answer one or two of them. He acknowledged the need, in his view, to amend article 5 of the tree preservation order to exclude reference to
other than trees in woodlands".
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the thought he has clearly given to this matter. I cannot comment on his particular proposal, but I will ensure that it is given appropriate consideration in our determination of the various options that may be available.
My hon. Friend went on to comment on the possibility of extending the scope of Forestry Commission felling licence controls to cover all coppice trees. I understand that a felling licence is not required in the case of coppice or underwood below 15 cm in diameter, measured at chest height. To extend controls would clearly be an additional administrative burden, involving increased costs. It might also inhibit, to some extent, the particular requirements of coppicing. However, again we will give due consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
It is appropriate to underline some of the broader points which have not been raised in the debate but which come within the ambit of this subject and to show the Government's awareness of the place that trees occupy in all our affections and in the rural economy. I assure the House of the great importance that the Government attach to conservation of the countryside. I know that hon. Members share our concern about the continued safeguarding of landscape and amenity, not least in those areas of south-east England which were so cruelly ravaged in the great storm last October. That storm was, of course, the greatest storm disaster to hit the south-east of England for more than 200 years. Sixteen counties were affected in whole or in part, south-east of a line from Poole to King's Lynn. Woodlands were flattened and familiar landscapes laid bare. The impact was borne by that part of England where native broadleaved woodlands are most abundant.
Exceptional winds caused significant damage to trees in the United Kingdom in 1953, 1968 and 1976. However, not since 1703 has a storm caused such severe damage in England. Faced with that disaster, the Government amply demonstrated their commitment to trees. Within days of the storm my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that special aid would be made available for the replacement of amenity trees which were lost. Of this, £2·75 million was provided as grants by building on the Countryside Commission's existing grant schemes, which were extended on a temporary basis to cover London and other urban areas. A further allocation of £250,000 for 1987–88 was announced earlier this year and the provision

of an additional sum of almost £800,000 to supplement the commission's regular tree-planting programme for 1988–89.
To undertake these responsibilities, the Countryside Commission set up a special unit—Task Force Trees. Hon. Members will recall the publication by Task Force Trees earlier this month of a helpful action pack which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The pack is aimed at householders and small landowners, and is available free of charge from the commission. It contains a range of valuable advice about the repair of damaged trees, the availability, planting and aftercare of new ones and ways in which people can help the efforts of volunteer groups, such as the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, and others in the huge job of restoring tree losses. For the longer term, the Government are considering the need for a continuation of the commission's programme and assessing how that will fit in with the efforts of local authorities, landowners and voluntary bodies. We have promised a statement of our intentions in good time for the start of the next planting season.
The response to the storm was, however, only one recent example of the significance that the Government attach to trees. Another initiative—the farm woodland scheme—is currently the subject of legislation before the House and is aimed at encouraging farmers to plant small woodlands both as valuable alternative use of agricultural land and to enhance the landscape. The aim of the scheme is to promote the planting of some 36,000 hectares in the first three years, which represents some 30 million trees a year, and farmers will receive special payments to defray the income forgone while the timber is growing. In some cases these payments will be available for as long as 40 years. Environmental considerations have played a major part in helping shape the scheme. For example, the aim is to achieve a high proportion of broadleaved planting and it should play a major role in diversifying the landscape and aiding the creation of new habitats.
I have used those two examples to underline the Government's awareness of the place that trees occupy in all our affections. I hope that by doing so I have managed to reinforce the importance of the main principles that underpin the background scene that has been brought to our attention in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. I again assure the House that the comments on tree preservation orders will be considered in detail. We shall act with all the urgency that we can muster after due and proper consultation with our colleagues in other Departments. I give an undertaking that we shall take the fullest account of all the points made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.